From: Telander, Jeff

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 2:40 PM

To: 'Frey, Nathan J.'

Cc: Paula VanLare; Tom Walton; Weatherhead, Darryl (Weatherhead.Darryl@epa.gov); 

Benromdhane, Souad; Sharon Nizich; Jordan, Scott (Jordan.Scott@epa.gov); 

Barnett, Keith

Subject: Response to Summary of Interagency Comments Under EO 12866/13563 Brick & 

Clay NESHAP NPRM

Nathan,

Our responses to the summary of interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 for the EPA 

proposed rule entitled, NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are attached.

Please let us know if you have any questions

From,

Jeff

<< Response to InteragencyComments on preamble 11-3-14.docx >>

<< Responses to interagencycomments 11-3.docx >>
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6560-50-P

E.O. 12866_Brick & Clay 2060-AP69 NPRM_20140916

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9913-58-OAR]

RIN 2060-AP69

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and 

NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 

national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing 

and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. The EPA is proposing 

that all major sources in these categories meet maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury, nonmercury metal hazardous air pollutants (or particulate matter 

surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics only); health-based 

standards for acid gas hazardous air pollutants; and work 

practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rule, which 

has been informed by input from industry and other stakeholders 

including small businesses, would protect air quality and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 2 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

promote public health by reducing emissions of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAP) listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act

(CAA).

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before [INSERT 

DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. A copy of comments on the information collection 

provisions should be submitted to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a 

public hearing by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the EPA will announce the 

details as to when the hearing will be held in a 

separate Federal Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Submit your comments, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products Manufacturing and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov: 

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 3 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing in the subject line of the message.

• Fax: (202) 566-9744.

• Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center

(EPA/DC), Mailcode 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 (for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing) or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 

20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 

Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, 

DC 20503.

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA 

WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 4 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291 for Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing or EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. The EPA’s policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be confidential business information

(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. The http://www.regulations.gov web site is an “anonymous 

access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 

without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email

address will be automatically captured and included as part of 

the comment that is placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 5 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 

files should not include special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 

information about the EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA Docket 

Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Docket. The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking 

under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-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., 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, 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 6 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a public hearing on this 

proposed rule if requested. Requests for a hearing must be made 

by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. Contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

garrett.pamela@epa.gov or (919) 541–7966 by [INSERT DATE 10 DAYS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to 

request a public hearing. If a hearing is requested, the EPA 

will announce the details, including specific dates, times, 

addresses and contact information for the hearing, in a 

separate Federal Register notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the 

proposed rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Mr. Jeff

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

Review***

Page 7 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

541-5427; Fax number: (919) 541-5450; Email 

address: telander.jeff@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:

3xRDL representative detection level values multiplied by 

three

ACI activated carbon injection

AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level

AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model

APCD air pollution control device

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BDL below detection limit

BLD bag leak detection

BSCP brick and structural clay products

CAA Clean Air Act

CalEPA California EPA

CAS Chemical Abstract Services

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

CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services

DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter

DLA dry limestone adsorber

DLL detection level limited
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 8 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FF fabric filter

FTIR Fourier transform infrared

gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot

HAP hazardous air pollutant

HCl hydrogen chloride

HEM-3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 

1.3.1)

HF hydrogen fluoride

Hg mercury

HQ hazard quotient

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer

ICR information collection request

IOM Institute of Medicine

IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

K kurtosis statistic

lb/hr pounds per hour

lb/ton pounds per ton

LML lowest measured level

MACT maximum achievable control technology

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

NATA National Air Toxics Assessment

NEI National Emissions Inventory

NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air 

pollutants

ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meter

No. number

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAEL no observable adverse effect level

non-Hg non-mercury

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

Review***

Page 9 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

O2 oxygen

OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring

OMB Office of Management and Budget

% percent

PIC products of incomplete combustion

PLC programmable logic controller

PM particulate matter

PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter

RDL representative detection level

REL reference exposure level

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RfC reference concentration

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

S skewness statistic

SBA Small Business Administration

SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SBE Standard Brick Equivalent

SEK standard error of kurtosis

SER small entity representative

SES standard error of skewness

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction

TCDD tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

TEQ 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents

TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index

tph tons per hour

tpy tons per year

TTN Technology Transfer Network

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

UPL Upper Prediction Limit

VCS voluntary consensus standards

VE visible emissions

WHO World Health Organization

Organization of This Document. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows:

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

Review***

Page 10 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed rule?

B. What is the background for startup, shutdown and malfunction?

C. What is the history of the proposed rule?

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products and Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing source categories?

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floor for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 11 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

B. What are the affected sources?

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 12 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

to limited datasets?

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

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 social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

IX. 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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 13 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA 

to set emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 

emitted by major stationary sources based on the performance of 

the MACT. We issued the NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products (BSCP) 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 proposing new standards for BSCP 

Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.

2. Summary of the Major Provisions

BSCP NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission limits for 

mercury (Hg) and non-mercury (non-Hg) HAP metals (or particulate 

matter (PM) surrogate) and a health-based emission limit for 

acid gases (hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 

chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing work practice standards for control of HAP emissions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 14 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

from periodic kilns, control of dioxins/furans emissions from 

tunnel kilns and control of HAP emissions during periods of 

startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance 

with the emission limits, the EPA is proposing 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 of daily VE checks.

Clay Ceramics NESHAP. The EPA is proposing MACT emission 

limits for Hg, PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and 

dioxins/furans and health-based emission limits for acid gases 

(HF and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile 

roller kilns. In addition, the EPA is proposing 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 

Comment [DK1]: For additional 

clarity, would it be correct to say 

“to help control emissions of 

dioxins/furans”?

Comment [TJ2]: Language has been 

added for additional clarity.

Comment [DK3]: Just to clarify, the 

PM surrogate is required for clay 

ceramics sources? Owners/operators 

do not have the option of reporting 

non-HAP metals (as is the case with 

the BSCP category) – is that 

correct?

Comment [TJ4]: We lack the data 

needed to establish a non-Hg metals 

limit for clay ceramics
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 15 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

proposing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods 

of startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with the 

emission limits, the EPA is proposing 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 a FF (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the 

option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system instead of 

daily VE checks.

3. Costs and Benefits

Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits 

of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP), while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes 

the costs of this proposed action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See section VII 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 IX.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

Emission controls $54.9 $18.4 $26 to $99
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 16 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Emissions testing $0.977 $0.238

Monitoring -- $0.346

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 $0.102 $0.0249

Monitoring -- $0.020

B. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated categories and entities potentially affected

by the proposed standards are shown in Table 3 of this preamble:

Table 3—NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by this 

Proposed Action

Category

NAICS 

codea

Examples of potentially 

regulated entities

Industry.... 327120 Brick, structural clay and 

extruded tile manufacturing 

facilities (BSCP NESHAP); and 

ceramic wall and floor tile 

manufacturing facilities (Clay 

Ceramics NESHAP).

327110 Vitreous plumbing fixtures 

(sanitaryware) manufacturing

facilities (Clay Ceramics 

NESHAP).

Federal government... ... Not affected.

State/local/tribal 

government...

... Not affected.

a North American Industry Classification System
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 17 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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., would be 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 proposed action to a particular entity, contact either 

the air permitting 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 proposed action 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 18 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 proposal and key technical 

documents at this same web site.

D. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the 

part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 

electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete 

version of the comments that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the 

public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that 

it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 

be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 19 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver 

information identified as CBI only to the following address: 

Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), 

OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0290 (for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP).

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed 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)). 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 20 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 nonair 

environmental impacts when doing so.

B. What is the background for 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 startup, shutdown and malfunction 

(SSM). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 

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

that under section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or 

limitations must be continuous in nature and that the SSM 

exemption violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously.

Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, we are proposing 

standards in this rule that apply at all times. In proposing the 

standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup 

and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in sections 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 21 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

IV.L and VI.L of this preamble, has proposed alternate standards 

for some sources during those periods.

Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all 

predictable and routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is defined as a sudden, 

infrequent and not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment or 

a process to operate in a normal or usual manner (see 40 CFR 

63.2). 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 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has 

recognized, the phrase “average emissions limitation achieved by 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 22 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the best performing 12 percent of” sources “says nothing about 

how the performance of the best units is to be 

calculated.” Nat’l Ass’n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 

F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for 

variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA 

section 112 requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part 

of that analysis. A malfunction should not be treated in the 

same manner as the type of variation in performance that occurs 

during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a 

failure of the source to perform in a “normal or usual manner” 

and no statutory language compels the EPA to consider such 

events in setting section CAA 112 standards.

Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 

standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the difficulties associated 

with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and 

duration of various malfunctions that might occur. For these 

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

Review***

Page 23 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 

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 air pollution control device 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 control device was 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 24 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

repaired. The source’s emissions during the malfunction would be 

100 times higher than during normal operations, and 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.

In the event that a source fails to comply with the 

applicable CAA section 112 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 25 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

“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 enforcement 

action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 

warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 

enforcement action and the federal district court will determine 

what, if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for 

citizen enforcement actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in 

an administrative proceeding can consider any defense raised and 

determine whether administrative penalties are appropriate.

In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in 

particular, section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices 

that will avoid malfunctions. Administrative and judicial 

procedures for addressing exceedances of the standards fully 

recognize that violations may occur despite good faith efforts 

to comply and can accommodate those situations.

C. What is the history of the proposed 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 26 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 (May 16, 2003). Those standards were 

challenged and subsequently vacated by the 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 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 

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

Review***

Page 27 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 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-OAR2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 

Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?

The proposed 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 proposed rule shows 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 28 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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, mercury, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these 

HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can 

be associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These 

adverse health effects could include chronic health disorders 

(e.g., irritation of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects 

on the central nervous system and damage to the kidneys) and

acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and congestion, 

alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting and effects on 

the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified two 

of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and chromium VI) and 

four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, 

dioxins/furans and nickel).

III. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the BSCP 

Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s action. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 29 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Section IV of this preamble provides our rationale for the 

proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed rule 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.

B. 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 this proposed BSCP rule, 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 30 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 today’s proposed BSCP rule.

The following BSCP process units are not subject to the 

requirements of today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products and 

(2) dryers. See section IV.A of this preamble for information on 

why these sources are not subject to the proposed BSCP rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed BSCP rule applies to you if you own or 

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

Review***

Page 31 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing a choice of emission limits for total nonHg HAP metals for all new and existing tunnel kilns. The options 

include a total non-Hg HAP metals limit (pounds per hour 

(lb/hr)) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals (pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard 

cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 7 percent oxygen (O2)). We are also 

proposing a choice of emission limits for Hg (lb/ton, lb/hr or 

micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (μg/dscm) at 7 percent 

O2) for new and existing tunnel kilns in two subcategories based 

on kiln size. In this proposed BSCP rule, 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. We are also proposing an emission limit for 

HCl-equivalent for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the 

facility to reduce the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. The proposed 

emission limits for Hg and non-Hg HAP metals are presented in 

Table 4 of this preamble.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 32 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Table 4—Proposed 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)

-- -- 2.2 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.7 E-04 lb/hr OR 

29 μg/dscm at 7

percent O2 for 

each existing 

large tunnel kiln 

at facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7

percent O2 for 

each existing 

small tunnel kiln 

at facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

all existing 

tunnel kilns at 

facility

0.16 lb/ton PM OR 

0.040 gr/dscf PM 

at 7 percent O2

OR 0.023 lb/hr 

non-Hg HAP metals 

for each existing 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

--

Limits for new sources

Large tunnel kilns

(≥ 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-05 lb/ton OR 

2.4 E-04 lb/hr OR 

13 μg/dscm at 7

percent O2 for 

each new large 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

Small tunnel kilns

(< 10 tph)

-- -- 2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR 

0.0011 lb/hr OR 70 

μg/dscm at 7 

percent O2 for 

each new small 

tunnel kiln at 

facility

All tunnel kilns 57 lb/hr HClequivalent for 

collection of 

0.022 lb/ton PM 

OR 0.0066 gr/dscf 

PM at 7 percent

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

Review***

Page 33 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Subcategory Acid gases

Total non-Hg HAP 

metals Hg

all new tunnel 

kilns at 

facility

O2 OR 0.0032

lb/hr non-Hg HAP 

metals for each 

new tunnel kiln 

at facility

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing work practice standards for BSCP periodic 

kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice 

standards would require developing and using a designed firing 

time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the 

periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln with the maximum load 

(in tons) 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 proposing work practice standards for BSCP 

tunnel kilns in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work 

practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 34 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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.

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.

We are proposing the work practice standards described in 

this paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP 

tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, you would be required to 

vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the 

kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). In 

addition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to the 

kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the 

exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, you 

would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the 

APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In 

addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln 

once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the 

exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 35 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, you would be 

required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.

We are proposing work practice standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as 

well. For startup, no bricks or other product may be introduced 

to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. 

For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be put into the 

kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing 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 would have to be conducted before renewing your 

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 today’s proposed BSCP rule, you would have to measure 

emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM (or non-Hg HAP metals). We 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 36 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

are proposing that you 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 you follow the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you 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.

Once you have conducted your performance test, you would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

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

kilns at your facility, you would sum the HCl-equivalent for 

each kiln using proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) 

to get your total facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value 

to the proposed limitation.

If you choose to comply with one of the two PM emission 

limits, we are proposing that you measure PM emissions using one 

of the following methods:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 37 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• 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, where 

you would weigh the filter and report the results as PM 

filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

If you choose to comply with the non-Hg HAP metals emission 

limit instead of one of the PM emission limits, you would 

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. You may also use Method 29 or any other approved 

alternative method to measure Hg emissions.

The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 

requirements that we are proposing. Prior to your initial 

performance test, you would need to install the continuous 

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment to be used to 

demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. 

During your initial test, you would use the CPMS to establish 

site-specific operating parameter values that represent your 

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

Review***

Page 38 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that you 

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, 

you are required to determine 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. If you 

measure different average feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg 

HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average 

values becomes your site-specific operating limit. If you use a 

BLD system, you would need to submit analyses and supporting 

documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and 

specifications for BLD systems.

If you operate a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent 

injection or DLS) and use a BLD system, we are proposing that 

you submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD

systems.

If you operate a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are 

proposing that you continuously measure the pressure drop across 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 39 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 your minimum site-specific pressure drop 

operating limit. Alternatively, you may continuously monitor the 

bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes 

during the performance test. You also would need to 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, you would need to establish your 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, you would need to document the source 

and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.

If you operate a wet scrubber, we are proposing that you 

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) 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, you would need to determine and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 40 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

record the average values for the three test runs and the 3-hour 

block average value. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your minimum site-specific pressure drop, liquid pH, 

liquid flow rate and chemical addition 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 your site-specific 

operating limit.

If you use an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we 

are proposing that you 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 your minimum site-specific activated carbon flow 

rate operating limit.

If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln, we are 

proposing that you calculate your maximum potential HClequivalent using proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). 

You would use the results from your performance test to 

determine your emissions at your maximum possible process rate. 

For example, if the design capacity of your kiln is 10 tph and 

you conducted your performance test at 9 tph, then the test 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 41 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

results represent 90 percent of your maximum potential 

emissions. If you have multiple kilns at your facility, you 

would need to sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for each 

kiln to get your total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 

and compare this value to the proposed health-based emission 

limitation for acid gases. If your total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the proposed 

limitation, we are proposing that you determine the maximum 

process rate for which your total facility maximum potential 

HCl-equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If 

you have multiple kilns, you would need to determine one or more 

combinations of maximum process rates that would result in a 

total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent remains at or 

below the proposed limitation. The maximum process rate(s) would 

become your operating limit(s) for process rate.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s BSCP rule proposes that you demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. 

You would have to follow the requirements in your operation, 

maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan and document conformance 

with your OM&M plan. You would need to operate a CPMS to monitor 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 42 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the operating parameters established during your initial 

performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The 

CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes and 

you would need to 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) per hour to have a valid hour of 

data. You would have to operate the CPMS at all times when the 

process is operating. You would also have to 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, 

you would need to calculate and record the 3-hour block average 

values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average for 

each 3-hour averaging period, you would need to have at least 75 

percent of the recorded readings for that period.

If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that you 

demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) healthbased emission limit by maintaining free-flowing lime in the 

feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If you find 

that lime is not flowing freely, according to load cell output, 

carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 43 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

measurement system or other system, you would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 

plan. You would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a 

per ton of fired product basis) at or above the level 

established during your HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record 

the feeder setting once each shift.

You have the option to use either a BLD system or VE 

monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP 

metals emission limit.

If you use a BLD system, we are proposing that you initiate 

corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and 

complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You 

would also need to 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, you would not count 

any alarm time if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no 

corrective action is required. If corrective action is required, 

you must count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If you take 

longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, you must count 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 44 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate 

corrective action.

If you choose to monitor VE, we are proposing that you 

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 kiln would need to be operating under normal 

conditions. If VE are observed, you would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 

plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 

22 tests, you 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, you would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 

plan and you would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that 

kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease 

the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 45 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

If you operate a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that you 

use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit.

If you operate a DLA, we are proposing that you demonstrate 

compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) health-based emission 

limit by collecting and recording data documenting the DLA 

pressure drop and reducing the data to 3-hour block averages. 

You would need to 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, you 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 would trigger 

corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You also would 

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

Review***

Page 46 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 you 

would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective actions 

according to your OM&M plan. You also would have to 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. You also would need to 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, you would need to monitor VE, as described 

in the previous paragraph.

If you operate a wet scrubber, we are proposing that you 

continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber 

pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, 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
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 47 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

at or above the minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg 

HAP metals performance test would demonstrate 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 would 

demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) healthbased emission limit. 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 would demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order.

If you use an ACI system, we are proposing that you 

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.

If you have BSCP tunnel kilns with no APCD, we are 

proposing that you monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 48 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

addition, if your last calculated total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases, then we are 

proposing that you collect and record data documenting the 

process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block 

averages. You would need to maintain the kiln process rate at or 

below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would enable

your total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent to remain 

at or below the proposed limitation.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in proposed Table 8 of 

subpart JJJJJ. The General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, recordkeeping and reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed BSCP rule would 

require the owner or operator to include in the notification of 

compliance status report certifications of compliance with rule
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 49 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

requirements. Semiannual compliance reports, as required by 40 

CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, would also be required for each 

semiannual reporting period.

This proposed BSCP rule would require 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 proposed Table 8 of subpart JJJJJ.

Specifically, we are proposing that you keep the following 

records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed BSCP rule.

• 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 proposed 

BSCP rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Records of each instance in which you 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 your 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 50 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• 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.

We are also proposing that you submit the following reports 

and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

you become 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 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.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

In this proposal, the EPA is describing a process to 

increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 51 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the 

EPA is proposing that owners and operators of BSCP manufacturing 

facilities submit electronic copies of required performance test 

reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer using 

EPA-provided software. The direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer is accomplished through the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) using the Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The Central Data Exchange is the 

EPA’s portal for submittal of electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT), which 

generates electronic reports of performance tests and 

evaluations. The ERT report package will be submitted using the 

CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA’s public 

database called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to 

all reports and data in WebFIRE via the WebFIRE Report Search 

and Retrieval link 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSub

mission). A description and instructions for use of the ERT can 

be found on the ERT web site 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 52 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), and CEDRI can be 

accessed through the CDX web site (www.epa.gov/cdx).

The proposal to submit performance test data electronically 

to the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted 

using test methods that are supported by the ERT at the time of 

the test. The ERT supports most of the commonly used EPA 

reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 

supported by the ERT is available on the ERT web site.

We believe that the electronic submittal of reports 

increases the usefulness of the data contained in those reports, 

is in keeping with current trends in data availability and may 

ultimately result in less burden on the regulated community. 

Electronic reporting can eliminate paper-based, manual 

processes, thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data 

entry, eliminating redundancies and providing data quickly and 

accurately to the affected sources, air agencies, the EPA and 

the public.

By making data readily available, electronic reporting 

increases the amount of data that can be used for the 

development of emission factors. The EPA has received feedback 

from stakeholders asserting that many of the EPA’s emission 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 53 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

factors are outdated or not representative of a particular 

industry emission source. While the EPA believes that the 

emission factors are suitable for their intended purpose, we 

also recognize that emissions profiles on different pieces of 

equipment can change over time due to a number of factors (fuel 

changes, equipment improvements, industry work practices), and 

it is important for emission factors to be updated to keep up 

with these changes. The EPA is currently pursuing emission

factor development improvements that include procedures to 

incorporate the source test data that we are proposing be 

submitted electronically. 

Emission factors are used in the development of emissions 

inventories, and improved emission factors means that the 

quality of these inventories will be improved more quickly than 

they would under the current paper reporting requirements. 

Emissions inventories are used for tracking emission trends and 

identifying potential sources of emissions for reduction. For 

example, the EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) uses 

the EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) in its screening 

level assessments to characterize the nationwide chronic cancer 

risk estimates and noncancer hazards from inhaling air toxics. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 54 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

The NATA is used as a screening tool for air agencies to 

prioritize pollutants, emission sources and locations of 

interest for further study to gain a better understanding of 

risks. Therefore, improving the quality of these inventories is 

an on-going goal for the agency and a benefit to the public, air 

agencies and the regulated community. 

Additionally, the EPA, the regulated community and the 

public may benefit from electronic reporting when the EPA 

conducts its CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews. 

Because we will already have access to these reports, our 

ability to do comprehensive reviews will be increased and 

achieved within a shorter period of time. Under an electronic 

reporting system, the EPA would have performance test data in 

hand; thus, it is possible that fewer or less substantial 

information collection requests (ICRs) in conjunction with 

prospective CAA-required technology and risk-based reviews may 

be needed. This may result in a decrease in the need for 

industry staff time to respond to data collection requests. It 

may also allow the EPA to conduct these required reviews more 

quickly, as we will not have to include the ICR collection time 

in the process. While the regulated community may benefit from 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 55 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

reduced information collection requests, the general public 

benefits from the agency’s ability to provide these required 

reviews more quickly.

Electronic reporting could minimize submission of 

unnecessary or duplicative reports in cases where facilities 

report to multiple government agencies and the agencies opt to 

rely on the EPA’s electronic reporting system to view report 

submissions. Where air agencies continue to require a paper copy 

of these reports and will accept a hard copy of the electronic 

report, facilities will have the option to print paper copies of 

the electronic reporting forms to submit to the air agencies, 

thus minimizing the time spent reporting to multiple agencies. 

Additionally, maintenance and storage costs associated with 

retaining paper records could likewise be minimized by replacing 

those records with electronic records of electronically 

submitted data and reports.

There are benefits of information that is submitted in a 

standardized format. Standardizing the reporting format will 

require the reporting of specific data elements, thereby helping 

to ensure completeness of the data and allowing for accurate 

assessment of data quality. Additionally, imbedded quality 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 56 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

assurance checks will perform some of the required method 

calculations, reducing errors in test reports. And because the 

system is entirely electronic, it eliminates transcription 

errors in moving data from paper reports to data systems for 

analysis. These quality assurance checks and procedures will 

increase the accuracy of test report data, improve the overall 

quality of test data, and lead to more accurate emission factors 

and higher quality emissions inventories. These features benefit 

all users of the data.

Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and 

automated review of the electronically submitted data. For 

example, because the performance test data would be readilyavailable in a standard electronic format, air agencies would be 

able to review reports and data electronically rather than 

having to conduct a review of the reports and data manually. 

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. Additionally, air agencies would benefit from the 

reported data being accessible to them through the EPA’s 

electronic reporting system wherever and whenever they want or 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 57 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

need access (as long as they have access to the Internet). The 

ability to access and review information electronically will 

assist air agencies in more quickly determining compliance with 

emission standards. This benefits both air agencies and the 

general public. 

The general public would also benefit from electronic 

reporting of emissions data because the data would be available 

for viewing sooner and would be easier for the public to access. 

The EPA website that stores the submitted electronic data will 

be easily accessible to the public and will provide a userfriendly interface that any stakeholder could access.

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 would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA significant time, money and 

effort while also improving the quality of emission inventories 

and air quality regulations.

IV. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural

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

Review***

Page 58 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the primary sources of 

HAP emissions are kilns, including tunnel kilns and periodic 

kilns. The HAP emitted from BSCP kilns include HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 

and other non-Hg HAP metals. At one time, dryers were a 

potential source of HF, HCl, Cl2 and non-Hg HAP metals emissions, 

but the design and operation of kilns and dryers has changed 

such that emissions released from the heating of the raw 

materials and the products of combustion no longer pass from the 

kiln into the dryer. In addition, the 2010 EPA survey requested 

that owners/operators of specific dryers test for 

dioxins/furans, and none of the tests found detectable levels of 

dioxins/furans. See the technical memorandum “Determination of 

“Non-Detect” Test Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. Other process units at BSCP 

manufacturing facilities (e.g., raw material processing and 

handling) have not been found to emit measurable quantities of 

HAP. For this reason, the proposed rule covers existing and new 

kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities which meet 

the applicability criteria in the rule.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 59 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

BSCP kilns that do not meet the applicability criteria 

include kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products. Nearly all of the acid gas emissions 

from the firing of BSCP products are released during the initial 

firing, so kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products emit little to no HF, HCl or Cl2.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals, this proposed BSCP rule 

provides owners and operators of regulated sources with a choice 

between a numerical emission rate limit as a mass of pollutant 

emitted per ton of bricks produced and a numerical emission 

limit in units of concentration. The selection of numerical 

emission rate limits and numerical emission limits as the format 

for this proposed BSCP rule provides flexibility for the 

regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any 

control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, 

rather than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control 

method that may not be appropriate in each case. In addition, 

the selection of numerical emission rate limits as mass of 

pollutant emitted per ton of bricks produced ensures that 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 60 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

differences in kiln sizes or production rates do not affect the 

level of emissions control achieved.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all kilns do not emit the same 

type and amount of HAP metals due to differences in raw 

materials and fuels used to fire the kilns. However, most kilns 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing needed to comply with numerous 

standards for individual non-Hg HAP metals. We have used PM as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals NESHAP for other rules with 

similar processes (e.g., Portland Cement Manufacturing, Lime 

Manufacturing).

Although we continue to believe that PM is a good surrogate 

for non-Hg HAP metals and that complying with a PM emission 

limit rather than non-Hg HAP metals limits will be less costly 

for most kilns, we understand that some owners and operators may 

find that meeting a total non-Hg HAP metals limit is less costly 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 61 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

than meeting a PM limit. To provide that flexibility, we have 

developed an alternative compliance option of a numerical 

emission rate limit for total non-Hg HAP metals as a mass of 

pollutant emitted per hour. The ability to comply with this 

limit would provide additional flexibility for small tunnel 

kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM 

emissions and would achieve equivalent emission reductions to 

the options to limit PM.

For acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), this proposed BSCP rule 

includes a health-based emission limit as a mass of HClequivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion about the 

development of the health-based standard for the proposed BSCP 

rule is provided in section IV.J of this preamble.

This proposed BSCP rule includes work practices for 

dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns. As described in more detail in 

section IV.K.2 of this preamble, 83 percent of the dioxin/furan 

data collected during the information collection process were 

below the detection level and it is not practicable due to 

technological and economic limitations to apply measurement 

methodology to test for compliance with a numerical limit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 62 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

This proposed BSCP rule also includes work practices for 

periodic kilns. As described in more detail in section IV.K.1 of 

this preamble, technological and economic limitations make it 

impracticable to measure compliance with numerical emission 

limits for BSCP periodic kilns.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 

sources. Through subcategorization, we are able to define 

subsets of similar emission sources within a source category if 

differences in emissions characteristics, processes or

opportunities for pollution prevention exist within the source 

category. Upon initial consideration of the available 

information on the BSCP manufacturing industry, we determined 

that separate subcategories for periodic kilns and tunnel kilns 

were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic kilns are 

smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly 

basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total 

BSCP industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated 

in batch cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously.

Third, periodic kilns are typically operated at higher 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 63 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

temperatures than tunnel kilns and products are typically heated 

in the kiln for longer periods than products fired in tunnel 

kilns, resulting in higher energy requirements. As noted in 

section IV.K.1 of this preamble, we have determined that it is 

technologically and economically infeasible to test periodic 

kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these 

differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison 

can be made, in that smaller kilns operated periodically (i.e., 

periodic kilns) would be expected to have lower emissions over 

time compared to the larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.

We then examined the potential for additional subcategories 

for tunnel kilns, including subcategorization based on kiln fuel 

and kiln size. Based on the available emissions test data, we 

could not discern differences in emissions based on fuel type. 

For that reason, we have not subcategorized by fuel type. We 

request comment, including additional data if appropriate, on 

whether we should subcategorize by fuel type. In particular, we 

request comment on whether we should create a subcategory for 

kilns fired with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

We then considered subcategorization of tunnel kilns based 

on kiln size. There are several differences between the design, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 64 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

operation and efficiency of larger kilns and smaller kilns. In 

particular, many small kilns are the older, less efficient kilns 

in the industry and newer kilns can be constructed to be larger 

and more efficient due to advances in design. Smaller, older 

kilns were constructed with large amounts of heavy refractory 

brick and are narrow and tall in shape, with high arched 

ceilings. Larger, newer kilns can be constructed with more 

efficient refractories and can include features such as fiber 

linings and insulating brick, resulting in a wider kiln with 

lower ceilings. In addition, the burners in a small kiln are 

generally less efficient and are located near the bottom of the 

kiln, where some of the heat is absorbed by the cars that move 

the bricks through the kiln rather than by the bricks 

themselves. In a large kiln, the burners are more efficient and 

are often located at the top of the kiln, where they can fire 

downward to the product. Combined with the kiln size and shape 

differences, the difference in burner efficiency and location 

results in a more even temperature distribution throughout the 

kiln and product in a large kiln than in a small kiln.

To assess whether these design and operation differences 

have an effect on emissions and provide support for defining 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 65 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

size subcategories in the proposed BSCP rule, we conducted a set 

of statistical analyses on the emissions data set. In the 

vacated rule, “small kilns” were defined as kilns with a design 

capacity less than 10 tph and “large kilns” were defined as 

kilns with a design capacity of 10 tph or greater. The main goal 

of the statistical analyses was to determine if these 

definitions are supported by our current data set. Because we 

have Cl2, Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data for only about 10 percent 

of the kilns in the industry, we conducted the series analyses 

based on the HF, HCl and PM data sets, which are available for a 

much larger percentage of the kilns in the industry, providing 

more representative kiln data sets for the analyses.

We found that the median of the emissions data from kilns 

in the large kiln data set was statistically different than the 

median of the emissions data from kilns in the small kiln data 

set for all three pollutants. We also used a logistic model to 

test the association between emissions and the hypothesized 

design capacity classification and the association was high. 

Finally, we conducted a cluster analysis and considered all 

three pollutants together to investigate whether the combined 

data set supported changing the definitions of small and large 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 66 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

kilns. This cluster analysis supported the subcategory 

definitions from the vacated rule. (For more information on the 

statistical analyses, see “BSCP Design Capacity 

Subcategorization Statistical Analysis” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0291.)

Based on the above information and analyses, we determined 

that differences in design and emissions exist between large (10 

tph or greater) and small (less than 10 tph) kilns. Therefore, 

we are proposing to exercise our discretion to subcategorize 

based on kiln size for these kilns’ emissions of Hg. As 

discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, we are not proposing 

to exercise our discretion to subcategorize for other 

pollutants.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

All standards established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 

must reflect MACT, the maximum degree of reduction in emissions 

of air pollutants that the Administrator, taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such emissions reductions 

and any nonair quality health and environmental impacts and 

energy requirements, determined is achievable for each category.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 67 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

For existing sources, MACT cannot be less stringent than 

the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 

12 percent of existing sources for categories and subcategories 

with 30 or more sources or the best performing 5 sources for 

subcategories with less than 30 sources. This requirement 

constitutes the MACT floor for existing sources. The CAA 

specifies that MACT for new sources shall not be less stringent 

than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the 

best controlled similar source. This minimum level of stringency 

is the MACT floor for new units.

The EPA may not consider costs or other impacts in 

determining the MACT floor. However, the EPA must consider cost, 

nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements in connection with any standards that are more 

stringent than the MACT floor (beyond-the-floor controls).

The remainder of this section describes the development of 

the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg and PM

(as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals). As noted in section IV.J

of this preamble, health-based emissions standards are being 

proposed for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2 under the provisions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 68 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared 

a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants.

1. Mercury

In our MACT floor analysis for Hg, we separated the sources 

into large kiln and small kiln subcategories, as described in 

section IV.C of this preamble. For each subcategory, we ranked 

the sources based on the data in terms of lb/ton (as described 

in section IV.E of this preamble) and identified the best 

performing 12 percent of sources. Once we identified the best 

performing kilns, we then calculated the MACT floor in units of 

lb/ton for each subcategory as described in section IV.E of this 

preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and 

concentration units (μg/dscm at 7-percent O2) for each 

subcategory, based on the concentration emissions data for the 

same top 12 percent (best performing) sources as the lb/ton 

floor. This is further discussed in section IV.E of this 

preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

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

Review***

Page 69 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2. Total Non-Hg HAP Metals

We developed MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg HAP metals. The available PM data show that kilns 

controlled with a FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) as a group 

are better performers than kilns without FF-based controls. When 

we divided the kilns into two groups, one group consisting of 

kilns with a FF-based APCD and the other group consisting of 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns with a different type of APCD, we 

found that the test data for kilns with FF-based APCD showed 

they were consistently good performers, while the test data for 

kilns without a FF-based APCD varied widely. The worst 

performing kiln with a FF-based APCD performs better than the 

average kiln in the group without a FF-based APCD. The best

performing 75 percent of the kilns with a FF-based APCD showed 

better performance than 80 percent of the kilns without a FFbased APCD. We also conducted a t-test on the averages of the 

two groups and we found that the average of the test data for 

kilns with FF-based APCD was statistically different from the 

average of the test data for kilns without a FF-based APCD (with 

99 percent confidence). See the technical memorandum “Analysis 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 70 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

of Potential Subcategories in the BSCP Source Category” in

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

One consequence of the wide variability in emissions from 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is that there are a few 

uncontrolled kilns and kilns controlled with DLA with lower 

lb/ton emissions than some of the kilns controlled with a FFbased APCD. We understand that that the emissions from kilns 

with FF-based APCD will be consistently low over time, based on 

the design of these APCD and years of experience with these 

devices. On the other hand, we do not have multiple tests over 

time that would enable us to say the same for kilns that have a 

different type of APCD (e.g., DLA) or are uncontrolled. Thus, we 

are requesting information and analysis as to whether the data 

showing low emissions from some kilns without a FF-based APCD 

are reliable.1

As of January 1, 2014, there were 225 operating BSCP tunnel 

kilns in the industry (including kilns at major sources and 

synthetic area sources); the top 12 percent of the kilns in the 

 1 Further, as discussed in section IV.P.1 of this preamble, the EPA is also 

considering setting emission limits for PM and total non-Hg HAP metals based 

on the top 12 percent of the data available in each of the kiln size 

subcategories. The reliability of the data showing low emissions from some 

kilns without a FF-based APCD is a key factor in the EPA’s determination of 

which approach is appropriate.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 71 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

industry would be represented by the 27 best performing kilns. 

Therefore, we ranked the kilns with a FF-based APCD in terms of 

lb/ton (as described in section IV.E of this preamble) and 

identified the 27 best performing sources from that group. Once 

we identified the best performing kilns, we then calculated the 

MACT floor in units of lb/ton as described in section IV.E of 

this preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in 

concentration units (gr/dscf at 7 percent O2), based on the 

concentration emissions data for the same top 12 percent (best

performing) sources as the lb/ton floor. As another alternative, 

we calculated an equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg HAP metals limit 

using the average non-Hg HAP metals content of the PM emissions 

and the average process rates of the best performing kilns. This 

limit would provide additional compliance flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the 

PM emissions. The alternatives are further discussed in section 

IV.E of this preamble and in the technical memorandum “Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 72 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. The EPA must exercise its judgment, 

based on an evaluation of the relevant factors and available 

data, to determine the level of emissions control that has been 

achieved by the best performing sources under variable 

conditions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit has recognized that the EPA may consider 

variability in estimating the degree of emission reduction 

achieved by best performing sources and in setting MACT 

floors. See Mossville Envt’l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 

1241–42 (DC Cir. 2004) (holding EPA may consider emission 

variability in estimating performance achieved by best

performing sources and may set the floor at level that best

performing source can expect to meet “every day and under all 

operating conditions”).

As discussed in section IV.D of this preamble, the EPA 

established the MACT floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg 

HAP metals) for BSCP kilns based on sources representing 12 

percent of the number of sources in the category. For Hg emitted 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 73 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

from each of the kiln subcategories, the EPA established the 

MACT floors based on sources representing 12 percent of the 

sources for which we had emissions information. The MACT floor 

limitations for Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg 

metals) were calculated based on the performance of the best

performing sources in each of the subcategories. The best

performing sources were determined by ranking each source’s 

average emission value from lowest to highest. 

Once the best performing sources in the MACT floor pools 

were identified, the MACT floors were calculated using an Upper 

Prediction Limit (UPL). The UPL takes into consideration the 

average performance of the units in the MACT floor pool and the 

variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. For 

more information regarding the general use of the UPL and why it 

is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see the memorandum 

“Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors”

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The UPL represents the value which one can expect the mean 

of a specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run 

average) to fall below for the specified level of confidence, 

based upon the results of an independent sample from the same 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 74 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

population. A prediction interval for a future observation or an 

average of future observations, is an interval that will, with a 

specified degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average 

of some other pre-specified number of) randomly selected 

observation(s) from a population. Given this definition, the UPL 

represents the value which we can expect the mean of three 

future observations (3-run average) to fall below, based upon 

the results of an independent sample from the same population. 

In other words, if we were to randomly select a future test 

condition from any of these sources (i.e., average of 3 runs), 

we can be 99 percent confident that the reported level will fall 

at or below the UPL value.

There are different UPL equations depending on the 

distribution of the data (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown). We first determined the distribution of each 

MACT floor pool’s data to determine the appropriate UPL equation 

using statistical tests of the kurtosis (K), standard error of 

kurtosis (SEK), skewness (S) and standard error of skewness

(SES). The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the degree of 

asymmetry of a given data set. According to the skewness 

hypothesis test, if S is less than 2 times the SES, the data 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 75 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

distribution can be considered to be normal. The kurtosis 

statistic (K) characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness 

of a given data distribution in comparison to a normal 

distribution. According to the kurtosis hypothesis test, if K is 

less than 2 times the SEK, the data distribution can be 

considered to be normal. The skewness and kurtosis hypothesis 

tests were applied to both the reported test values and the logtransformed values of the reported test values to determine the 

distribution of each dataset. A UPL was then calculated for each 

MACT floor pool with the UPL equation corresponding to the 

dataset’s distribution (e.g., normal, lognormal, 

skewed/unknown).

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Test method measurement imprecision can also be a component 

of data variability. Of particular concern are those data that 

are reported near or below a test method’s pollutant detection 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 76 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

capability. There is a concern that a floor emissions limit 

calculated using values at or near the method detection limit

may not account adequately for data measurement variability. The 

expected measurement imprecision for an emissions value 

occurring at or near the detection limit is about 40 to 50 

percent. Relative pollutant measurement imprecision decreases to 

a consistent 10 to 15 percent for values measured at a level 

about 3 times the method detection limit.2

One approach that we believe could be applied to account 

for measurement variability would require defining a detection 

limit that is representative of the data used in establishing 

the floor emissions limitations and also minimizes the influence 

of an outlier test-specific method detection limit value. The 

EPA has developed a list of representative detection levels 

(RDL) developed from available pollutant specific method 

detection levels.3 These RDL values are then multiplied by 3 to 

decrease measurement imprecision to around 10 to 15 percent (as 

 2 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method Accuracy and 

Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack Emission Measurements, 

CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.

3 “Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing 

various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits.”

Memorandum from Peter Westlin, SPPD, MPG and Raymond Merrill, AQAD, MTG, to 

SPPD management and MACT rule writers. December 13, 2011.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 77 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in values referred 

to as “3xRDL” values.

The appropriate 3xRDL value was compared to the calculated 

UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. If the 3xRDL value 

was less than the calculated UPL value, we concluded that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed and we used the 

calculated UPL value as the MACT floor emissions limit. If, on 

the other hand, the 3xRDL value was greater than the calculated

UPL value, we concluded that the calculated UPL value does not 

account entirely for measurement variability. We then used the 

3xRDL value in place of the calculated UPL value to ensure that 

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had below detection 

limit (BDL) or detection level limited (DLL) run data present in 

the best performing data sets (see the technical memorandum

“Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

Brick and Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 78 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. For example, we know that the HAP 

emission data from the best performing units are, for the most 

part, short-term averages and that the actual HAP emissions from 

those sources will vary over time. If we do not account for this 

variability, we would expect that even the units that perform 

better than the floor on average could potentially exceed the 

floor emission levels a part of the time, which would mean that 

variability was not properly taken into account. This 

variability may include the day-to-day variability in the total 

HAP input to each unit; variability of the sampling and analysis 

methods; and variability resulting from site-to-site differences 

for the best performing units. The EPA’s consideration of 

variability accounted for that variability exhibited by the data 

representing multiple units and multiple data values for a given 

unit (where available). We calculated the MACT floor based on 

the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described earlier from the 

average performance of the best performing units and the 

variability of the best performing units.

We believe this approach reasonably ensures that the 

emission limits selected as the MACT floors adequately represent 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 79 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the level of emissions actually achieved by the average of the 

units in the top 12 percent, considering operational variability 

of those units. Both the analysis of the measured emissions from 

units representative of the top 12 percent and the variability 

analysis are reasonably designed to provide a meaningful 

estimate of the average performance or central tendency, of the 

best performing 12 percent of units in a given subcategory. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay 

Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 5 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. For this source category, all the existing source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL.

Table 5—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of best performing 

sources

1.6 E-05 lb/ton

1.7 E-04 lb/hr

14 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.2 E-05 lb/ton

2.7 E-04 lb/hr

29 μg/dscm

--

Small tunnel Avg. of best performing 1.8 E-04 lb/ton --
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 80 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

kilns (< 10 

tph)

sources 0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm 

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of best performing 

sources

-- 0.041 lb/ton

0.011 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.16 lb/ton

0.040 gr/dscf 

a For this source category, all the existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL.

b Concentration units are at 7 percent O2. c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is somewhat different from the approach that we used 

to calculate the MACT floors for existing sources because the 

statutory standard is different. Although the MACT floors for 

existing units are intended to reflect the performance achieved 

by the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources, the 

MACT floors for new units are meant to reflect the emission 

control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source. Thus, for existing units, we are concerned about 

estimating the central tendency of a set of multiple units, 

whereas for new units, we are concerned about estimating the 

level of control that is representative of that achieved by a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 81 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

single best performing source. As with the analysis for existing 

sources, the new source analysis must account for variability.

Similar to the MACT floor process used for existing units, 

the approach we used for determining the MACT floor for new 

units was based on available emissions test data. Specifically, 

we calculated the new source MACT floor for a subcategory of 

sources by ranking each unit’s average emission value within the 

subcategory from lowest to highest to identify the best 

performing similar source. The new source MACT floor limits for

Hg and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) were 

calculated based on the performance of the best performing

source for each pollutant in each of the subcategories.

The MACT floor limits for new sources were calculated using 

the same UPL formula as was used for existing sources, except 

the data used were from the best performing source rather than 

the best performing 12 percent of sources. As previously 

discussed, we accounted for variability of the best performing

source in setting floors, not only because variability is an 

element of performance, but because it is reasonable to assess 

best performance over time. We calculated the new source MACT 

floor based on the UPL (upper 99th percentile) as described 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 82 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

earlier from the average performance of the best performing

similar source, Student’s t-factor and the total variability of 

the best performing source.

This approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit 

selected as the MACT floor for new sources adequately represents 

the average level of control achieved in practice by the best

controlled similar source, considering ordinary operational 

variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

Table 6 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory and 

pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 6—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural 

Clay Products New Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Large tunnel 

kilns (≥ 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.5 E-05 lb/ton

1.8 E-04 lb/hr

10 μg/dscm 

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-05 lb/ton

2.4 E-04 lb/hr

13 μg/dscm 

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

Review***

Page 83 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Subcategory Parameter Hgb PMb,c

Small tunnel 

kilns (< 10 

tph)

Avg. of top performer 1.8 E-04 lb/ton

0.0010 lb/hr

62 μg/dscm

--

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 lb/ton

0.0011 lb/hr

70 μg/dscm 

--

All kilns Avg. of top performer -- 0.0060 lb/ton

0.0020 gr/dscf 

MACT floor -- 0.022 lb/tond

0.0066 gr/dscfd

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Concentration units are at 7 percent O2. c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on the 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

In a recent D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision 

in National Association of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, which 

involved challenges to EPA’s MACT standards for sewage sludge 

incinerators, questions were raised regarding the application of 

the UPL to limited datasets. We have since addressed these 

questions, as explained in detail in the memorandum titled 

“Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited 

Datasets” (hereafter referred to as the “Limited Dataset Memo”), 

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 84 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

A limited dataset is defined as having less than seven data 

points. In calculating MACT floor limits based on limited 

datasets, we considered additional factors as described in the

Limited Dataset Memo. We seek comments on the approach described 

in the Limited Dataset Memo and whether there are other 

approaches we should consider for such datasets. We also seek 

comments on the application of this approach for the derivation 

of MACT limits based on limited datasets in this proposal, which 

are described in the Limited Dataset Memo.

For the BSCP source category, we have limited data sets for 

the following pollutants and subcategories: Hg for existing and 

new small tunnel kilns; PM for new tunnel kilns; and Hg for new 

large tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we performed the steps 

outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See the Limited Dataset 

memo for more information.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing 

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and IV.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor options). When considering beyond-the-floor options, the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 85 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EPA must consider not only the maximum degree of reduction in 

emissions of HAP, but must take into account costs, energy and 

non-air quality health and environmental impacts when doing so.

Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for each 

subcategory, we considered regulatory options more stringent 

than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the performance of 

technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the 

different subcategories. We considered requiring all existing 

sources to meet the new source MACT floors for Hg and PM (as a 

surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) developed as described in 

section IV.F of this preamble. We analyzed the beyond-the-floor 

options for Hg and total non-Hg HAP metals separately for 

existing sources. Our analyses are documented in the technical

memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts 

for the BSCP NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

The beyond-the-floor option for total non-Hg HAP metals is 

estimated to achieve additional non-Hg HAP metals reductions of 

2.58 tpy and cost an additional $22.8 million per year (2011 

dollars), for a cost effectiveness of $8,820,000 per ton of 

total additional non-Hg HAP metals removed. The beyond-the-floor 

option for Hg is estimated to achieve additional Hg reductions 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 86 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year) and cost an additional $9.2

million per year (2011 dollars), for a cost effectiveness of 

$148,000,000 per ton of total additional Hg removed ($74,000 per 

pound of additional Hg removed). We have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control beyond the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved for either the Hg or total non-Hg 

HAP metals beyond-the-floor options. Therefore, we are not 

proposing beyond-the-floor limits for Hg or total non-Hg HAP 

metals.

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for new tunnel kilns for 

each pollutant was based on the emission control that is 

achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source 

within each of the subcategories. A new kiln would likely need 

both a FF and ACI system for control of non-Hg HAP metals and Hg 

to meet the new source MACT floors. When we establish a beyondthe-floor standard, we typically identify control techniques 

that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were identified 

that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new source 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 87 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

floors for the subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor limit for new sources in this 

proposed BSCP rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed BSCP rule, we considered whether 

it was appropriate to establish health-based emission standards 

under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. 

As a general matter, CAA section 112(d) requires MACT standards 

at least as stringent as the MACT floor to be set for all HAP 

emitted from major sources. However, CAA section 112(d)(4) 

provides that for HAP with established health thresholds, the 

EPA has the discretionary authority to consider such health 

thresholds when establishing emission standards under CAA 

section 112(d). This provision is intended to allow the EPA to 

establish emission standards other than technology-based MACT

standards, in cases where an alternative emission standard will 

still ensure that the health threshold will not be exceeded, 

with an ample margin of safety. This section discusses the 

prerequisite for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard, the 

factors the EPA considered in exercising its discretion to set a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 88 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the level of 

the proposed standard.

1. What are the prerequisites for setting a CAA section

112(d)(4) standard?

The prerequisites for setting a CAA section 112(d)(4) 

standard are that the pollutant must have a health threshold and 

not be carcinogenic.4 Whether a pollutant has a health threshold 

is based on certain factors, including evidence and

classification of carcinogenic risk and evidence of 

noncarcinogenic effects:5

• The EPA “presumptively concludes” that known, probable and 

possible carcinogens (Group A, B and C pollutants) “should 

not be categorized as threshold pollutants.”

• Pollutants for which there is not enough evidence to make a 

conclusion on carcinogenicity (Group D pollutants) will be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

• Pollutants classified as non-carcinogens (Group E 

pollutants) are “presumptively considered” to be threshold 

pollutants.6

 4 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985 (col. 2-3) 

(September 9, 2010) (“In order to exercise this discretion [to set health 

threshold standards under 112(d)(4)], EPA must first conclude that the HAP at 

issue has an established health threshold...”). 5 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18766/1-18767/1 (April 15, 1998). 6 The current weight-of-evidence under the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen 

Risk Assessments, which replaced the 1986 cancer guidelines, recommends the 

following cancer hazard descriptors: “Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Likely to Be 

Carcinogenic to Humans,” “Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,” 

“Inadequate Information to Assess Carcinogenic Potential,” and “Not Likely to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 89 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Health threshold standards may not be set for pollutants that 

are carcinogenic.7

The EPA has exercised its discretionary authority under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) in a handful of prior actions setting 

emissions standards for other major source categories, including 

the emissions standards issued in 2004 for commercial and 

industrial boilers and process heaters, which were vacated on 

other grounds by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. In the proposals for both the Pulp and Paper 

Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP, 63 FR at 18765 

(April 15, 1998) and Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, 67 FR at 78054 

(December 20, 2002), the EPA invoked CAA section 112(d)(4) for 

HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility. In those 

proposed actions, the EPA concluded that HCl had an established 

health threshold (in those cases it was interpreted as the 

reference concentration for chronic effects or RfC) and was not 

classified as a human carcinogen. In light of the absence of 

evidence of carcinogenic risk, the availability of information 

 Be Carcinogenic to Humans” (which are considered equivalent to the 1986 

groups A,B,C,D and E respectively). 7 See Pulp and Paper Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources NESHAP Proposed 

Rule, 63 FR 18754, 18765/3 (“The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) 

only to HAP’s that are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that 

carcinogens be considered nonthreshold pollutants”).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 90 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

on noncarcinogenic effects and the limited potential health risk 

associated with the discrete units being regulated, the EPA 

concluded that it was within the EPA’s discretion to set an 

emissions standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl under the 

circumstances of those actions.

In more recent actions, the EPA noted that HCl was a 

threshold pollutant, but decided not to propose a health-based 

emission standard for HCl emissions under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

for Portland Cement facilities (74 FR at 21154; May 6, 2009) or 

for Boilers and Process Heaters (75 FR at 32032; June 4, 2010)

for other reasons. To date, the EPA has not implemented a NESHAP 

that applied the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4) to HF or 

Cl2.8

Since any emission standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) 

must consider the established health threshold level, with an 

ample margin of safety, in this proposed BSCP rulemaking the EPA 

has considered the adverse health effects of the HAP acid gases, 

HCl, Cl2 and HF. The standard approach for determining potential 

hazards of a pollutant has been to use a health benchmark below 

 8 The EPA has not classified HF or Cl2 gas with respect to carcinogenicity. 

However, at this time the agency is not aware of any data that would suggest 

either of these HAP are carcinogens.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 91 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

which effects are not expected to occur. Described below are the 

health effects and benchmarks for HCl, Cl2 and HF and the 

rationale for their designation as threshold pollutants. It is 

important to note that if exposure levels as proposed by the 

emissions limits in this proposed BSCP rulemaking are achieved, 

the adverse health effects described below will not be of 

concern for emissions from these source categories.

Hydrogen chloride is corrosive to the eyes, skin and mucous 

membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose and

respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary 

edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been 

reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis and dermatitis in 

workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause 

dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on 

the reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In 

rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have 

been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and 

decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA 

conducted a toxicity assessment of chronic inhalation exposure 

to HCl and has established an RfC of 20 micrograms per cubic 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 92 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

meter (μg/m3).9 An RfC is defined as an estimate (with 

uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

continuous inhalation exposure to the human population 

(including sensitive subgroups10) that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The 

EPA RfC for HCl was based on respiratory toxicity observed in 

animals. An uncertainty factor of 300 was applied to the lowest 

adverse effect level noted in animals. This assessment did not 

take into account effects associated with acute exposure.11 The 

EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.

With respect to the potential health effects of HCl, we 

know the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the RfC is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• Little research has been conducted on its carcinogenicity. 

The one occupational study of which we are aware found no 

evidence of carcinogenicity.

 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS). Hydrogen chloride (CASRN 7647-01-0). 1995. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm. Accessed on April 11, 2014. 10 “Sensitive subgroups” may refer to particular life stages, such as children 

or the elderly or to those with particular medical conditions, such as 

asthmatics.

11 California EPA considered acute toxicity and established a 1-hour reference 

exposure level (REL) of 2.1 mg/m3

. An REL is the concentration level at or 

below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified 

exposure duration. RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive 

individuals in the population by the inclusion of margins of safety.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 93 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl.12

Based on this information, the agency believes it is 

reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant.13 Based on the 

negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s knowledge of how 

HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism of action, as 

discussed above, the agency considers HCl to be a threshold 

pollutant.

The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to Cl2

have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, Cl2 is a well-known 

sensory irritant (capable of eliciting sensory irritation) and 

the most sensitive target for toxicity in humans and animals is 

the respiratory system. Acute exposures to low levels of Cl2

(approximately 3 to 40 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3

)) have 

been shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. 

Acute exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m3) of Cl2 in humans 

can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and

pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) exposure to Cl2 gas in 

 12 See California Office of Health Hazard Assessment. Acute Toxicity Summary 

for Hydrogen Chloride. Available at:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD2_final.pdf#page=112, 

EPA, 2008. 13 See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review 

Draft; EPA–600/8–87/041A, August 1994.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 94 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

workers has resulted in respiratory effects including eye and 

throat irritation and airflow obstruction. Animal studies have 

reported decreased body weight gain, eye and nose irritation, 

non-neoplastic nasal lesions and respiratory epithelial 

hyperplasia from chronic inhalation exposure to Cl2. There is no 

evidence that Cl2 causes reproductive or developmental effects in 

animals or humans. A few studies of workers in the chemical 

industry did not find any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic. The 

EPA, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and

the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) have not 

classified Cl2 gas as to its carcinogenicity.

The human health value for Cl2 is an Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) 

of 0.00015 μg/m3

.14 The MRL is defined as an estimate of daily 

human exposure to a substance that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of adverse effects (other than cancer) over a 

specified duration of exposure.15 The MRL was based on 

 14 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36. 15 Inhalation MRLs are used in noncancer assessments when IRIS RfCs are not 

available because their concept, definition and derivation are 

philosophically consistent (though not identical) with the basis for EPA’s 

RfCs (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 95 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

respiratory toxicity (nasal lesions) observed in a chronic 

inhalation exposure (1 year) in monkeys. An uncertainty factor 

of 30 was applied to the MRL to account for uncertainties in 

extrapolating results from animal to humans and to account for 

human variability. Since the effects of acute exposure of humans 

and animals to Cl2 have been well characterized, the ATSDR 

toxicity profile for Cl2 also included acute MRL.

With respect to the potential health effects of Cl2, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure to concentrations at or below the MRL is 

not expected to cause chronic respiratory effects.

• The acute effects of Cl2 have been well characterized in 

humans.

• Studies of workers in the chemical industry did not find 

any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how Cl2 reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency presumptively 

considers Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.

There is a significant body of scientific literature 

addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HF.16 Hydrogen 

 16 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 96 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

fluoride is a respiratory tract irritant capable of causing 

severe tissue damage in the respiratory system. Acute (shortterm) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe 

respiratory effects in humans, including severe irritation and 

pulmonary edema. Severe ocular irritation and dermal burns may 

occur following eye or skin exposure in humans. Because the 

toxic effects of HF are, to a large extent, based on the 

fluoride ion rather than the hydrogen ion, it is noteworthy to 

mention that the major health effect of chronic inhalation 

exposure to high levels of fluoride is skeletal fluorosis. In 

skeletal fluorosis, fluoride accumulates in the bone 

progressively over many years and can cause a variety of 

symptoms including stiffness and pain in the joints. In severe 

cases, the bone structure may change and ligaments may calcify,

resulting in muscle impairment and pain. Chronic inhalation 

exposure to HF (with particulate fluorides) in the aluminum 

industry has been associated with increased risk of asthma. 

Chronic oral 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 and bone fluorosis. Although the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 97 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

existing toxicological database on fluoride does not provide 

strong evidence for the consideration of fluoride as an 

essential element, several organizations consider fluoride an 

important dietary element for humans. The Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) has derived adequate intake values ranging from 0.01 to 4 

milligrams per day to reduce the occurrence of dental caries.17

The World Health Organization (WHO) considers fluoride to be 

“essential” because it considered “resistance to dental caries 

to be a physiologically important function.”18 With regard to HF 

carcinogenic potential, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 

document states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation of fluoride 

is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting 

in the existing literature.” The EPA has not classified HF for 

carcinogenicity.

The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA 

uses for HF is the Reference Exposure Level (REL) of 0.014 mg/m3

 17 IOM. 1997. Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, 

vitamin Dand fluoride. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. National 

Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. 

www4.nationalacademies.org/iom/iomhome.nsf.

18 WHO. 2002. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

Environmental Health Criteria Number 227. 

http://www.inchem.org/pages/ehc.html.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 98 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

derived by California EPA (CalEPA).19 CalEPA defines the REL as a 

concentration level at (or below) which no adverse health 

effects are anticipated for specific exposure durations, a 

concept that is substantially similar to EPA's non-cancer doseresponse assessment perspective and we, therefore, use it as an 

alternate value in the absence of an Integrated Risk Information 

System (IRIS) RfC.20 REL are designed to protect the most 

sensitive individuals in the population by the inclusion of 

margins of safety. The REL was based on minimal changes in bone 

density (skeletal fluorosis) in the workplace by Derryberry et 

al.21 CalEPA states that major strengths of the key study on 

which the chronic REL is based is the observation of health 

effects in a large group of workers exposed over many years and

the identification of no observable adverse effect level 

(NOAEL). The primary uncertainty in the study is the lack of 

 19 California EPA Chronic Toxicity Summary for Fluorides including Hydrogen 

Fluoride. 2003. Available at 

http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf#page=270. 20 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has 

developed dose-response assessments for many substances, based both on 

carcinogenicity and health effects other than cancer. The process for 

developing these assessments is similar to that used by the EPA to develop 

IRIS values and incorporates significant external scientific peer review. The 

EPA may use CalEPA values in the absence of an IRIS value. 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf. 21 Derryberry OM, Bartholomew MD, Fleming RBL. 1963. “Fluoride exposure and 

worker health.” Arch Environ Health 6:503-514.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 99 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

comprehensive health effects examination. Another source of 

concern is the potential for greater susceptibility of children 

to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid bone 

growth at early lifestages. This effect applies with particular 

importance to children’s teeth since it has been established 

that excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development in 

infancy and childhood causes dental fluorosis. To account for 

uncertainties, the CalEPA REL included a factor of 10 for 

intraspecies differences (which also accounts for variation in 

kinetics between children and adults). In addition, the chronic 

inhalation REL is lower than the oral chronic REL and the 

California Public Health Guidance for fluoride in drinking 

water, which are based on lifetime exposure and protective of 

infants and children. CalEPA also considered the acute toxicity 

of HF and established a 1-hour REL of 0.24 mg/m3 based on mild 

eye and respiratory irritation.

With respect to the potential health effects of HF, we know 

the following:

• Chronic exposure at or below the REL is not expected to 

cause adverse effects.

• There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic 

potential of HF. With regard to the carcinogenic potential 

evidence available, the ATSDR Public Health Statement 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 100 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

document on HF states that “carcinogenicity via inhalation 

of fluoride is not considered to be likely by most 

investigators reporting in the existing literature.”22

• There is significant evidence on the health effects of 

acute exposure to HF allowing for the derivation of an 

acute health benchmark.

Based on the negative carcinogenicity data and on the EPA’s 

knowledge of how HF reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 

of action, as discussed above, the agency considers HF to be a 

threshold pollutant.

2. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

It is clear the EPA may exercise its discretionary 

authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) only with respect to 

pollutants with a health threshold. Where there is an 

established threshold, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) 

to allow it to weigh additional factors, beyond any established 

health threshold, in making a judgment whether to set a standard 

for a specific pollutant based on the threshold or instead 

follow the traditional path of developing a MACT standard after 

determining a MACT floor. In deciding whether to exercise its 

 22 Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (ATSDR) 2010. Available at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp.asp?id=1079&tid=36.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 101 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

discretion for a threshold pollutant for a given source 

category, the EPA interprets CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow it 

to take into account factors such as the following:

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

If the EPA does determine that it is appropriate to set a 

standard based on a health threshold, the agency must develop 

emission standards that will ensure the public will not be 

exposed to levels of the pertinent HAP emitted from the source 

category in question in excess of the health threshold, with an 

ample margin of safety.

a. Availability of Data to Determine a Standard

In determining whether to set a health-based standard, the 

EPA considered whether sufficient data for a particular industry 

are available to determine such a standard. In previous rules, 

the EPA declined to set a health-based standard, based in part 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 102 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

on the unavailability of data to determine a standard.23 However, 

for the BSCP rule, because of the relatively small number of 

facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT 

proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility-specific 

information, including tunnel kiln locations and operating 

characteristics and stack parameters, available for all BSCP 

facilities to assess the feasibility of health-based standards 

in this rule. Such information enabled us to conduct the 

dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health-based 

emission limit for acid gases.24 Consequently, we have concluded 

that we have enough information to determine the health-based 

emission standards for the acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2 for the 

BSCP industry. As discussed in further detail below, these 

limits have been developed to ensure that exposure is below the 

health threshold for each facility and also ensure that acute 

exposures will not pose any health concerns.25

 23 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010) (“[W]e 

have concluded that we do not have sufficient information at this time to 

establish what the health-based emission standards would be for HCl or the 

other acid gases.”). 24 For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0291. 25 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (Sept. 9, 2010) 

Comment [author5]: Boiler MACT has 

been finalized. Please update. 

Comment [TJ6]: This language is not 

in the final Boiler MACT since it 

is rationale language, included 

only in proposed rule.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 103 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

b. Co-benefits

We also considered whether setting technology-based MACT 

standards for HF, HCl and Cl2 from BSCP plants would result in 

significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most 

notably sulfur dioxide (SO2). Although MACT standards may 

directly address only HAP, not criteria pollutants, Congress did 

recognize, in the legislative history to CAA section 112(d)(4), 

that MACT standards would have the collateral benefit of 

controlling criteria pollutants as well and viewed this as an 

important benefit of the air toxics program.26 Therefore, even 

where the EPA concludes a HAP has a health threshold, the agency 

may consider such benefits as a factor in determining whether to 

exercise its discretion under CAA section 112(d)(4). The 

additional nationwide reductions of SO2 that would be 

attributable to BSCP MACT standards for acid gases are estimated 

to be only 4,300 tpy in the third year following promulgation of 

the proposed BSCP standards. This reduction is substantially 

lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other 

 (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of HCl 

from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic healthbased emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not 

pose health concerns.”). 26 See S. Rep. No. 101–228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 104 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a healthbased limit,27 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

In addition to potential health impacts, the EPA has 

evaluated the potential for environmental impacts when 

considering whether to exercise discretion under CAA section

112(d)(4).28 The agency applied the environmental risk screen 

methodology that it uses in the Risk and Technology Program 

 27 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 

appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate 

for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

mercury.

28 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 (September 9, 

2010).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 105 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

under section 112 of the CAA to evaluate the potential for 

chronic exposure to acid gases emitted by BSCP facilities to 

cause phytotoxicity and reduced productivity of plants.

The environmental screen uses air concentrations from the 

HEM-3 model used in the human health exposure and risk analysis. 

We take these concentrations and derive an area-weighted average 

offsite annual ambient air concentration for each pollutant. The 

area-weighted average concentrations are compared directly to 

the appropriate ecological benchmarks for a given pollutant by 

dividing the area-weighted average concentration by the 

appropriate ecological benchmark. The result is called a hazard 

quotient (HQ). An HQ greater than 1 indicated that the areaweighted average concentration exceeded the ecological 

benchmark.

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each BSCP facility. Although Cl2 may 

also be emitted from BSCP facilities, chlorine gas is so 

reactive that it is not expected to remain in the environment 

very long after it is released. Chlorine immediately reacts with 

both organic and inorganic materials that it comes into contact 

with. Chlorine undergoes direct photolysis in the air and its 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 106 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

half-life in the troposphere is on the order of several minutes. 

Therefore, it was not considered in the environmental risk 

screening for the BSCP Manufacturing source category.

For HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations 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, there was only one facility 

with a modeled concentration of HCl at an offsite receptor 

location that exceeded the ecological benchmark and that was at 

a single receptor.

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of 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. 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 less than one percent of the offsite 

modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there would 

not be any significant or widespread environmental effects.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 107 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

d. Cumulative Effects

The EPA may consider the availability of information on 

emissions from co-located and nearby sources and consider if it 

is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health effects 

from emissions from the sources in the category when combined 

with other emissions from other sources that are co-located or 

located nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of 

the same pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may 

cause cumulative effects.

Through the BSCP industry’s responses to the 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of BSCP plants and the levels of HF, HCl and Cl2

emitted from those plants. BSCP plants are not commonly colocated with any other type of operations. They are typically

located near the source of the raw materials on large tracts of 

land from which raw materials are extracted. This provides an 

additional buffer between the BSCP plants and the surrounding 

area. Because of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks 

from the BSCP plants are located close to the facility property 

line. In trying to define cumulative risks from non-BSCP 

emissions, the location and emissions associated with other 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 108 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

sources not in the BSCP manufacturing source category are far 

less certain. While the EPA 2008 survey and EPA 2010 survey data 

for BSCP facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and 

scientists, the emissions levels and locations of other 

facilities, such as those in the NEI, have not undergone the 

same level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of 

nearby emissions would contain a great deal of uncertainty. 

However, as discussed above, because of the large footprint of 

these plants, their rural locations and the BSCP risks being 

confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the 

combined emissions of HF, HCl or Cl2 from BSCP facilities and 

other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and 

environmental effects.

3. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

Based on the EPA’s findings, including the minimal 

cumulative health and environmental effects expected from colocated and nearby sources, the minimal co-benefits of setting 

technology-based MACT standards for acid gases, the minimal 

ecosystem impacts from setting a health-based standard in place 

of a MACT standard and the availability of data to determine a 

health-based standard, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 109 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects than the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

CAA section 112(d)(4) expressly states that the healthbased standard must be set at the threshold level “with an ample 

margin of safety.” In addition, the legislative history of CAA 

section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-based emission limit 

under section 112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 110 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

observable effects occur, with an ample margin of safety.29

Because the statute requires an ample margin of safety, it would 

be reasonable to set any CAA section 112(d)(4) emission standard 

for a pollutant with a health threshold at a level that at least 

assures that, for the sources in the controlled category or 

subcategory, persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would 

not experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold 

is based.30 The legislative history also states that establishing 

a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard rather than a conventional MACT 

standard “shall not result in adverse environmental effects 

which would otherwise be reduced or eliminated.”31

The EPA’s decision to exercise its discretion to use CAA 

section 112(d)(4) will not be used to exclude sources from 

compliance. The EPA does not believe that a plain reading of the 

statute supports the establishment of an approach in which the 

EPA excludes specific facilities from complying with emissions 

limits if the facility demonstrates that its emissions do not 

pose a health risk. While CAA section 112(d)(4) authorizes the 

 29 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32030/2 (June 4, 2010), citing 

S.Rep. 101–228 at 171–72. 30 See Boiler MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32031/3 (June 4, 2010). 31 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54985/2 (September 9, 

2010), citing S.Rep. 101-228 at 171-72.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 111 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EPA to consider the level of the health threshold for pollutants 

which have an established threshold, that threshold may be 

considered when establishing emissions standards under CAA 

section 112(d). Therefore, the EPA must still establish 

emissions standards under CAA section 112(d) even if it chooses 

to exercise its discretion to consider an established health 

threshold.32

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we 

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel kiln and 

the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., stack 

height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each tunnel kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the BSCP manufacturing source category were estimated using 

the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector HEM-3 version 

1.3.1). The HEM–3 performs three primary risk assessment 

activities: (1) conducting dispersion modeling to estimate the 

concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating long-term 

 32 See Boiler MACT Final Rule, 76 FR 15608, 15643/3-14644/1 (March 21, 2011). 

See also MATS Final Rule, 77 FR 9304, 9406/1 (February 16, 2012) (same point 

using nearly identical text).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 112 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 

within 50 kilometers of the modeled sources and (3) estimating 

individual and population-level inhalation risks using the 

exposure estimates and quantitative dose-response information.

The air dispersion model used by the HEM–3 model (AERMOD) 

is one of the EPA’s preferred models for assessing pollutant 

concentrations from industrial facilities. To perform the 

dispersion modeling and to develop the preliminary risk 

estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data libraries. The first is a 

library of meteorological data, which is used for dispersion 

calculations. This library includes 1 year (2011) of hourly 

surface and upper air observations for 824 meteorological 

stations, selected to provide coverage of the United States and 

Puerto Rico. A second library of United States Census Bureau 

census block internal point locations and populations provides 

the basis of human exposure calculations.33 In addition, for each 

census block, the census library includes the elevation and 

controlling hill height, which are also used in dispersion 

calculations. A third library of pollutant unit risk factors and 

 33 USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/downloadhuman-exposure-model-hem.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 113 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

other health benchmarks is used to estimate health risks. These 

risk factors and health benchmarks are the latest values 

recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air pollutants. 

The chronic and acute values for the acid gases evaluated in 

this assessment are presented in Tables 7 and 8 of this 

preamble, respectively. Further information on the development 

and sources of these benchmarks and the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0291.

Table 7—Dose-Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gases

Pollutant CAS Numbera

RfC

(mg/m3) Source

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 0.02 IRIS

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.014 CalEPA

Chlorine 7782505 0.00015 ATSDR

a Chemical Abstract Services identification number. For groups of compounds 

that lack a CAS number, we have used a surrogate 3-digit identifier 

corresponding to the group’s position on the CAA list of HAP.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 114 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Table 8—Dose-Response Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to 

Acid Gasesa

Pollutant

CAS 

Number

AEGL-1

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

AEGL-2

(1-hr)

(mg/m3)

ERPG-1

(mg/m3)

ERPG-2

(mg/m3) REL

Hydrogen chloride 7647010 2.7 33 4.5 30 2.1

Hydrogen fluoride 7664393 0.82 20 1.6 16 0.24

Chlorine 7782505 1.5 5.8 2.9 8.7 0.21

a AEGL = Acute Exposure Guideline Level, ERPG = Emergency Response Planning 

Guideline

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

The HQ is the estimated exposure divided by a reference level 

(e.g., the RfC). For a given acid gas, exposures at or below the 

reference level (HQ less than or equal to 1) are not likely to 

cause adverse health effects. As exposures increase above the 

reference level (HQs increasingly greater than 1), the potential 

for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk assessment 

where multiple pollutants are co-emitted, we aggregate noncancer 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 115 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

HQs of HAP that act by similar toxic modes of action or (where 

this information is absent) that affect the same target organ. 

This process creates, for each target organ, a specific hazard 

index (TOSHI) defined as the sum of HQs for individual HAP that 

affect the same organ or organ system. Because we performed HEM3 model runs for each acid gas individually, we did not 

aggregate HQ values of different acid gases. Of course, multiple 

acid gas pollutants are emitted at BSCP facilities, but a 250 

tpy level of HCl-equivalent emissions (based on the HEM risks 

modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not exceeded as long as 

the HCl-equivalent emissions do not exceed 250 tpy. It is 

important to note that this emission limit is only applicable to 

the sources in this source category and should not be considered 

for sources other than those included in this analysis. 

Equivalent emissions for other acid gases are determined by the 

ratio of the chronic RfCs to that for HCl, such that the HClequivalent emissions for HF are 175 tpy and for Cl2 are 1.9 tpy.

For the assessment of potential health risks from acute 

exposures to the acid gases, we performed a screening assessment 

using conservative assumptions that in combination approximate a 

worst-case exposure. The acute exposure scenario assumed worst-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 116 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

case meteorology (from 1 year of local meteorology) and that a 

person is located downwind at the point of maximum impact during 

this same worst-case 1-hour period, but no nearer to the source 

than 100 meters, which is conservative for this industry given 

our understanding of the locations of these facilities.

Screening for potentially significant acute inhalation 

exposures also followed the HQ approach. We divided the maximum 

estimated acute exposure by each available short-term threshold 

value to develop an array of HQ values relative to the various 

acute endpoints and thresholds. In general, when none of these 

HQ values are greater than 1, there is low potential for acute 

risk. In those cases where HQ values above 1 are seen, 

additional information is used to determine if there is a 

potential for significant acute risks. Additional information 

for facilities in the BSCP manufacturing source category 

included using aerial imagery of the facilities to determine the 

maximum offsite 1-hour concentrations.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 250 tpy level does not necessarily 

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 

HCl and Cl2 model runs, there were no facilities with acute 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 117 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

screening HQ values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that four 

of the 91 facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL,

with the highest being 2. However, no facility exceeded an HQ 

(AEGL-1) value for HF. To assure that no single hour 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).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure 

that (1) the health-based emission limit cited above for BSCP 

facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons 

exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the 

adverse health effects on which the threshold is based. In 

addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas emissions 

associated with BSCP kilns, based on results from the EPA’s 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 118 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

environmental risk screen methodology outlined above, are not 

expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl, HF

and Cl2 emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for 

HF and Cl2 using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the 

HCl-equivalent values to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed BSCP rule. For more information on the 

development of the health-based standard see the technical 

memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 

Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural 

Clay Products Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. For more information on the calculation of 

an HCl-equivalent value, see the technical memorandum 

“Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP 

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 119 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for certain 

HAP from certain BSCP manufacturing sources is not feasible 

because the application of measurement methodology to certain 

sources is not practicable due to technological and economic 

limitations. Specifically, the EPA is proposing a work practice 

standard for BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of emission limits for 

acid gases (HF, HCl and Cl2), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The EPA 

is also proposing a work practice standard for dioxin/furan 

emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns in lieu of a dioxin/furan 

emission limit. The rationale for these work practice standards 

is discussed in the paragraphs below. We request comment on how 

the work practice standards were developed and the proposed 

standards themselves.

1. Periodic Kilns

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standard

Overview. Periodic kilns are batch process units that are 

used for firing BSCP under a carefully controlled environment. 

The large majority of BSCP are fired in tunnel kilns, which 

operate continuously and are much more energy-efficient than 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 120 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

periodic kilns when producing BSCP of a uniform type, such as 

standard building bricks. In contrast, periodic kilns can 

readily accommodate variations in firing temperature profiles 

and cycle times to match the requirements of a wide variety of 

products. As a result, periodic kilns generally are reserved for 

specialty products and typically are used only when necessary.34

In the BSCP industry, periodic kilns are classified as 

either beehive kilns or shuttle kilns, but all operate generally 

the same. A batch of unfired bricks or shapes is loaded into the 

cold kiln, the kiln is sealed and the burners are ignited and 

controlled to carefully increase the temperature according to a 

time-temperature profile specific to the products being 

manufactured. Once firing is complete, the temperature in the 

kiln is reduced, the burners are extinguished and the fired 

product is allowed to cool. When the product is at or near 

ambient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products 

are removed.35

Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP 

industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours 

 34 See the memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 35 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 121 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

per cycle and typically take 48 to 58 hours. These cycle times 

cover the period beginning when the burners are first ignited 

and ending when the burners are cut off. It may take an 

additional 8 to 10 hours for the fired products to cool before 

they can be removed from the kiln.36

Emissions. Based on limited data from the testing of three 

BSCP periodic kilns using Method 320 (Fourier transform infrared 

(FTIR) spectroscopy), emissions of HF and HCl begin within the 

first 5 to 10 hours of the firing cycle and continue throughout 

the firing cycle. Emissions are highly variable and can 

experience large spikes at various points throughout the cycle. 

In addition, it is likely that emissions continue beyond the 

completion of the firing cycle, as the fired products cool. HF 

concentrations in the kiln exhaust can still exceed 100 parts 

per million at the end of the firing cycle.37

Testing Periodic Kilns for Emissions of HF and HCl. The 

conventional compliance test requirement for most emission 

sources is to test each source for three 1-hour test runs. This 

requirement is based on the assumptions that the source operates 

 36 Id. 37 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 122 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

continuously and that emissions are relatively constant. 

However, there generally are some variations in emissions. For 

this reason, the source is tested over three separate runs and

the results are averaged to generate a number that is 

representative of typical emissions.38

Unlike continuous sources, emissions from BSCP periodic 

kilns can vary significantly over the course of one cycle. 

Because of these variations and the fact that emissions begin 

shortly after the start of the firing cycle and continue beyond 

the end of the cycle for an undetermined period of time, the 

conventional compliance test requirement of three 1-hour test 

runs cannot accurately measure emissions. Instead, the only way 

to accurately determine the total emissions from a BSCP periodic 

kiln cycle is to measure the emissions throughout the entire 

firing cycle and continuing beyond the completion of the cycle 

until emission levels become negligible. Testing for any less 

time could result in estimated emissions that are either much 

higher or much lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle emissions are sampled.39

 38 Id. 39 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 123 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Because of the variations during firing cycles and 

variations across the tests, sampling a single kiln cycle is not 

adequate for characterizing periodic kiln emissions, so more 

than one kiln cycle would have to be tested. Given that BSCP 

periodic kiln cycle times typically range from 48 to 58 hours, 

each periodic kiln would need to be tested for more than 100 

hours in order to determine an emission rate that is 

representative of normal operating conditions. Also, because 

BSCP periodic kilns are used to fire specialty products that may 

have significantly differently time-temperature profiles, it 

would be necessary to test the same kiln multiple times to 

characterize emissions from different types of products.40

Test Methods. The standard reference methods for measuring 

emissions of HF and HCl are EPA Methods 26 and 26A. These

methods are reliable and relatively inexpensive. However, if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns, breakthrough of HCl can 

occur. That is, the testing apparatus reaches its capacity for 

absorbing HCl and subsequent HCl in the emissions are not 

captured. It is not known if breakthrough has occurred until a 

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

Review***

Page 124 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

breakthrough analysis is performed after completion of the test. 

If it is determined that breakthrough has occurred, retesting is 

necessary. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for 

testing throughout periodic kiln cycles is the need for 

additional manpower to operate the sampling trains around the 

clock and to recover samples.41

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320. With FTIR, HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

near real-time emissions data. However, as noted in the 

following section, the cost for testing by FTIR is expensive, 

similar to the cost for testing by Methods 26 or 26A throughout 

an entire cycle.42

Emission Test Costs. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle. If it were determined that the variations in emissions 

from cycle to cycle were significant, it would be necessary to 

test each kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a 

representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would 

 41 Id. 42 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 125 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

double the testing cost to almost $100,000 and testing for a 

third cycle would triple the cost to almost $150,000 (2009 

dollars). In addition to these costs, additional costs would be 

incurred for testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would 

have to be tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 

5 or 17). If testing were extended into the cooling period, the 

costs would be even higher.43

To address the potential economic impact of a requirement 

to test periodic kilns, we conducted a cost-to-sales assessment.

(See the memorandum “Economic Feasibility of Testing Periodic 

Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.) The 

conclusion that testing is not economically feasible for most of 

the kilns is quite clear. Over half of the kilns included in the 

analysis have estimated cost-to-sales percentages greater than 3

percent. The economic analysis estimates that for the upper end 

of the closure estimate for the other kilns when the costs are 

between 3 percent and 5 percent, one-quarter of the firms will 

close. This possibility of closure makes this level of costs for 

testing not economically feasible.

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

Review***

Page 126 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Periodic 

Kilns. 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. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) 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.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for BSCP periodic kilns. 

Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit for 

periodic kilns is technologically limited to testing procedures 

that are economically infeasible for the BSCP industry. 

Consequently, we are proposing a work practice standard for BSCP 

periodic kilns under CAA section 112(h).44

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

Review***

Page 127 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

b. Development of Work Practice Standard

Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six 

operational factors that have a direct bearing on HAP emissions 

from BSCP periodic kilns: temperature, firing cycle, product 

quality, automatic control, combustion control and kiln 

load/kiln technology.45 These six operational factors and their 

impact on HAP emissions are described further in the paragraphs 

below.

Temperature. Various scientific test methods are used to 

study the reactions in brick clays during heating. Differential 

thermal analysis, thermo gravimetric analysis and simultaneous 

thermal analysis are techniques used to show the oxidation, dehydroxylation and vitrification reactions, as well as the weight 

loss characteristics of the material. Knowledge of these 

reaction characteristics would enable the brick manufacturer to 

design the kiln firing cycle for the optimization of the product 

quality and to minimize process losses. Ensuring good product 

quality and minimizing process losses would eliminate the need 

for additional production firing cycles to meet the quantities 

 45 See the memorandum titled “Work Practice Standards for Periodic Kiln 

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

Review***

Page 128 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of 

additional HAP emissions.46

Firing Cycle. Each periodic firing process in the brick 

industry is unique and is governed by the nature of the brick 

clay material being fired. For example, some shale materials 

have higher carbon and sulfur levels and require a longer 

“dwell” at the oxidation temperature range from 1,600 °F to 

1,700 °F, while other clay materials are more refractory in 

nature and require higher final firing temperatures in order to 

develop the desired finished color and the physical properties 

to meet the ASTM standards required by the market. These factors 

influence the period of time in the oxidation stages, as well as 

the time required in the final “soak” stage of the firing cycle. 

HAP emissions have also been shown to take place in these stages 

of the firing cycle.47 Consequently, knowledge of these factors 

is key to avoiding any additional emissions during these stages.

Product Quality. The time and temperature relationships 

previously described affect the ultimate quality and 

acceptability of the finished product. An “over-fired” product 

 46 Id. 47 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 129 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

would produce excessive shrinkage, color variation and process 

losses. This type of firing cycle would likely produce higher 

HAP emissions per ton of ware fired. Similarly, an under-fired 

product would not meet durability standards required by the ASTM 

standards and the market. While under-firing the product would 

produce less HAP emissions, more product would have to be fired 

to meet production requirements, which would lead to more HAP 

emissions per sellable ton of ware. Therefore, any work practice 

standard would need to be a practice that produces the best 

product quality and the minimum HAP emissions. This optimized 

work practice would entail developing an optimum firing cycle 

for each particular brick clay body.48

Automatic Control. The design of the kiln firing system 

influences the brick manufacturers’ ability to achieve 

repeatable, maximum product quality results. Most periodic kiln 

operators in the brick industry have used modern programmable 

logic controller (PLC) technology for some time. These systems 

enable the brick manufacturer to program the kiln firing 

temperature over a well-established, optimized time cycle, to 

achieve repeatable results. Modern high-velocity burner 

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

Review***

Page 130 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

technology is commonly employed.49 Achieving repeatable, maximum 

product quality results would eliminate the need to fire 

additional product to meet production requirements, thereby 

avoiding the generation of additional HAP emissions.

Combustion Control. The use of PLC technology enables the 

rate of gas delivery to the burner system to be accurately 

programmed, to ensure that each stage of the firing cycle is 

accurately controlled and to avoid over-firing or under-firing. 

The measuring devices that are part of the combustion equipment 

enable the kiln operator to adjust the air-to-fuel ratios in 

each stage, to achieve the optimum combustion efficiency needed 

to produce the desired product. In this way, the production of 

poor quality, rejects and losses is minimized. Technology that 

does not achieve this would produce higher losses and poor 

quality, resulting in additional production firing cycles being 

required to meet the quantities demanded by the market and 

additional HAP emissions.50

Kiln Load/Kiln Technology. For proper combustion, it is 

important that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as 

 49 Id. 50 Id.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 131 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

overloading could cause improper combustion and lost product, 

resulting in additional production firing cycles and additional 

HAP emissions. To ensure proper firing, the following parameters 

should be addressed:51

• Employment of draft controls on exhaust fans to adjust 

exhaust volume flow.

• Measurement, monitoring and control of kiln pressure by 

adjustment of kiln exhaust.

• Measurement and monitoring of kiln temperatures.

• Measurement and control of air and fuel flow to the 

combustion system.

Work Practice Standard. Based on these six operational 

factors, the following work practice standard is proposed under 

CAA section 112(h):52

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the periodic kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each periodic kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and document the total tonnage placed in the 

kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

 51 Id. 52 See the email titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the docket for the 

proposed BSCP rulemaking.

Comment [DK7]: Is there a minimum 

load, or is that not necessary?

Comment [TJ8]: Minimum load not 

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

Review***

Page 132 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each periodic kiln, including logs to document 

the proper operation of the periodic kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

2. Dioxin/Furan Emissions

a. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard

The significant majority of measured dioxin/furan emissions 

from BSCP tunnel kilns are BDL and, the EPA considers it 

impracticable to reliably measure dioxin/furan emissions from 

these units. (Note: Both dioxin/furan emissions and detection 

levels are in terms of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 

(TCDD) toxic equivalents (TEQ).) The fact that the majority of 

measurements are so low casts doubt on whether the tests 

accurately measured the true levels of emissions. The 

dioxins/furans for each run were compared to one-half the RDL 

developed for utilities.53 Overall, 15 out of 18 test runs (83 

percent of the entire test run data set) contained dioxin/furan 

 53 Johnson, S. Determination of “non-detect” from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) 

and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of 

MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards. June 5, 2014.

Comment [DK9]: Does EPA have 

suggestions for how frequently 

these items should be inspected?

Comment [TJ10]: Frequency would be 

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

Review***

Page 133 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

estimates below one-half of the RDL. Based on the difficulties 

with accurate measurements at the levels of dioxins/furans 

encountered from tunnel kilns and the economics associated with 

units trying to apply measurement methodology to test for 

compliance with numerical limits, we are concluding that 

application of measurement methodology is not practicable and 

are proposing to set a work practice standard under CAA section 

112(h). We request comment on the rationale for setting work 

practice standards.

b. Work Practice Standard

The proposed work practice standard described below ensures 

that equipment is maintained and run so as to minimize emissions 

of dioxins and furans. The work practice would involve 

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. Dioxins/furans

are products of incomplete combustion (PIC) and optimizing 

combustion limits the formation of PIC, thereby minimizing 

emissions of dioxins/furans.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 134 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

We are proposing that the tune-up must be conducted no less 

frequently than every 36 calendar months. Initial compliance 

with the work practice standard of maintaining burners must 

occur within 180 days of the compliance date of the BSCP rule. 

The initial compliance demonstration for the work practice 

standard of conducting a tune-up must occur no later than 42 

months (36 months plus 180 days) from the effective date of the 

final BSCP rule. We request comment on the proposed work 

practice standards.

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As noted in section III.B of this preamble, tunnel kilns 

typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns are 

infrequent. Startup of a tunnel kiln involves starting up the 

burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the 

kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing 

bricks or structural clay products. Shutdown of a tunnel kiln is 

the process of cooling the kiln from the proper operational 

temperature by stopping the burners based on a set procedure. 

When the temperature of the kiln is below the proper operational 

temperature, BSCP manufacturers typically do not push new 

Comment [DK11]: What is EPA’s 

rationale for this frequency? Are 

there data that indicate a more 

frequent tune up is not necessary?

Comment [TJ12]: This is language 

from EGUs. EGU proposal specified 

18 months, but changed it to 36 

months for final rule in response 

to public comments. The intent was 

to perform the work practice in 

conjunction with routine 

maintenance operations at the 

facility, and be a logical 

extension of routine best practices 

for boiler inspection and 

optimization. The change after 

proposal was in keeping with that 

intent, in response to public 

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

Review***

Page 135 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

product into the kiln, so the emissions are not expected to be 

the same during startup and shutdown as during normal 

operations.

While the kiln is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln does not heat or cool evenly. The 

fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with the 

relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, accurate 

results over three test runs using the measurement methods 

proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance.

Even if testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, 

most of the emission limit formats chosen for this proposed BSCP 

rule are not appropriate for use during periods other than 

normal operation. For example, if there is no throughout in the 

kiln, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput format 

would be essentially meaningless. In addition, the concentration 

based-standards are corrected to a specified O2 concentration to 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 136 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

avoid the use of dilution air to lower the measured 

concentration, but during startup and shutdown, the O2

concentration in the kiln exhaust is likely to fluctuate. This 

means that even if an owner or operator could conduct an 

emissions test and measure the O2 content during startup and 

shutdown for comparison to the O2-corrected emission limit, the 

fluctuations in O2 content and other parameters in the kiln mean 

that the O2-corrected emissions are also fluctuating.

For tunnel kilns with an APCD, venting the kiln exhaust 

through the APCD at low temperatures can cause operational 

problems, including moisture in the bags of a baghouse or 

solidification of the lime in a DIFF. Therefore, the BSCP owners 

and operators that responded to the SSM portion of the 2010 EPA 

survey indicated that they bypass the APCD if the kiln exhaust 

temperature is below a “low temperature set point.” Based on 

information received through the 2010 EPA survey, this kiln 

exhaust temperature ranges from 284 to 400 °F for startup and 

from 150 to 300 °F for shutdown. All of the EPA survey

respondents indicated that no new product is introduced to the 

kiln as long as the APCD is bypassed, so that emissions are

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

Review***

Page 137 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for 

periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. 

For startup, you would be required to vent the exhaust from the

kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. 

For shutdown, you would be required to vent the exhaust from the

kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls 

below 300 °F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be put 

into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F 

and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When 

the kiln exhaust is being vented through the APCD, you would be 

required to comply with the applicable continuous compliance 

requirements described in section III.G of this preamble.

For kilns that can meet the proposed standards without an 

APCD, there are no concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures 

for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data 

through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of 

uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we recognize that 

it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during periods of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 138 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

startup and shutdown. Therefore, we are proposing work practice

standards for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel 

kilns without an APCD. For startup, no bricks or other product

may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no bricks or other product may be 

put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are bricks in the kiln, you would be required to 

comply with the applicable continuous compliance requirements 

described in section III.G of this preamble.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed BSCP rule. These requirements are 

described in detail in sections III.F and III.G of this 

preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our 

determination of the information necessary to ensure that the 

emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed BSCP rule without imposing a 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 139 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

significant additional burden for facilities that must implement 

them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, Cl2, PM (or non-Hg HAP metals) and Hg be 

demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP 

rule would also require 5-year repeat performance tests to 

ensure, on an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly 

and that its performance has not deteriorated.

The majority of test methods that this proposed BSCP rule 

would require for the performance stack tests (e.g., EPA Methods 

5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA 

standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the proposed 

emission limits are based were conducted using these test 

methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 

the proposed BSCP rule would require continuous parameter 

monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these 

parameters within the operating limits established during the 

performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 140 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

requirements because they produce data that will be useful to 

both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and

because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the BSCP 

industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed 

emission limits. These parameters include lime injection rate 

(on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; 

pressure drop (or bypass stack damper position) and limestone 

feeder setting for DLA; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and

chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; and 

activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems. If applicable for 

demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl/Cl2 standard, the kiln 

monitoring parameter included in the proposed BSCP rule is the 

kiln process rate. Many of these CPMS are standard features on 

BSCP tunnel kilns and their associated APCD and have also been 

used in other standards for similar industries.

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed BSCP rule 

also includes a requirement for kilns equipped with a FF (e.g., 

a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone FF) to either install a BLD system 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 141 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being proposed, BLD systems 

have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We 

have also determined that periodic VE checks are a reasonable 

alternative to BLD systems for this proposed BSCP rule. Periodic 

VE checks have also been proposed for kilns without an add-on 

control to demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 142 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

install and test any control systems that may need to be

retrofitted onto existing kilns, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.

The compliance date for existing area sources that

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

You would be required to comply with the applicable 

requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, subpart A of 40 

CFR part 63, as described in Table 8 of the proposed BSCP rule. 

We evaluated the General Provisions requirements and included 

those we determined to be the notification, recordkeeping and
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 143 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and effective 

enforcement of this proposed BSCP rule.

We are also proposing that you keep records on the firing 

time and temperature cycle for each periodic kiln, the type of 

product fired in each batch and the amount of product fired in 

the periodic kiln, to address the operational factors that 

impact HAP emissions from periodic kilns and demonstrate

compliance with the work practice standard for periodic kilns

(discussed further in section IV.K.1 of this preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that you keep records and 

submit a report of each burner tune-up that is conducted to 

ensure good combustion practice and minimize the formation of 

dioxins/furans from incomplete combustion, to demonstrate

compliance with the dioxin/furan work practice standard for 

tunnel kilns (discussed further in section IV.K.2 of this 

preamble).

We are also proposing that you keep records and submit a 

report of each malfunction and the corrective action taken as 

part of the next semiannual compliance report. The proposed 

compliance report would provide information on each type of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 144 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which 

caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit.

This proposed BSCP rule also includes a requirement for 

electronic reporting of performance test data, which is

discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to the BSCP rule, 

once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued under an 

EPA-approved state operating permit program. The operating 

permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA and the 

implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If you 

are operating in the first 3 years of your operating permit, you 

will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate this BSCP 

rule. If you are in the last 2 years of your operating permit, 

you will need to incorporate this BSCP rule into the next 

renewal of your permit.

Q. What are the alternate approaches the EPA is considering?

1. Alternate Non-Hg HAP Metals Standards

As noted in section IV.E of this preamble, the proposed 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM are based on 

the best performing 27 kilns with a DIFF or DLS/FF (i.e., 12 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 145 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

percent of the kilns in the industry). Instead of these proposed 

limits, we are considering an alternate approach of setting 

emission limits for total non-Hg HAP metals and PM based on MACT 

floors calculated using the top 12 percent of the data available

in each of the kiln size subcategories, similar to the procedure 

we followed for setting the Hg limits.

The alternate PM limits were calculated using the same 

procedure as described in section IV.E for Hg. In other words, 

the kilns were ranked within each subcategory on the basis of 

their lb/ton PM emissions and the top 12 percent best performing

kilns were identified (top 9 large kilns and top 3 small kilns). 

Both the PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

existing sources were calculated based on those top 12 percent. 

The alternate PM lb/ton limit and the concentration limit for 

new sources were calculated based on the best performing source 

in each subcategory.

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, the EPA must 

take considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the 

BSCP alternate options, we have limited datasets for the 

following pollutants and subcategories: PM for new large tunnel 

kilns and PM for new small tunnel kilns. For each dataset, we 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 146 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

performed the steps outlined in the Limited Dataset Memo. See 

the Limited Dataset Memo for more information.

The alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limit was calculated 

using a similar methodology as the proposed total non-Hg HAP 

metals limit. Since the alternate total non-Hg HAP metals limits 

were calculated based on smaller data sets, we found that there 

were no small kilns in the top three best performing kilns with 

both PM and non-Hg HAP metals data and only one large kiln in 

the top nine best performing kilns with both PM and non-Hg HAP 

metals data. Therefore, the alternate large kiln total non-Hg 

HAP metals limit for existing sources was calculated by 

multiplying the alternate PM lb/ton limit by the throughput and 

the percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured in the PM during 

that test. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit for 

existing sources was then set equal to the existing source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit. For new sources, the best 

performing unit in the PM new source MACT floor pool did not 

have any non-Hg HAP metals data. Therefore, the alternate large 

kiln total non-Hg HAP metals limit for new sources was 

calculated using the average throughput and the average 

percentage of non-Hg HAP metals measured during tests for kilns 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 147 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

with a FF-based APCD. The alternate small kiln non-Hg HAP metals 

limit for new sources was then set equal to the new source large 

kiln non-Hg HAP metals limit.

The alternate emissions limits for existing and new sources 

are presented in in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. 

We request comment on the calculation methodology used to 

generate these alternate limits, which is described in the

technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

(MACT) Floor Analysis for Brick and Structural Clay Products” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291), as well as comment on 

whether we should use these limits instead of the limits we are 

proposing.

2. HAP Metals Work Practice Standard

In the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy 

Review (SBAR) Panel, members of the BSCP industry discussed 

whether work practice standards for Hg and non-Hg HAP metals 

would be more appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns than emissions 

limits for these pollutants. BSCP industry representatives noted 

the high percentage of test runs below the respective detection 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 148 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

limits in the tests results for each metal as support for this 

suggestion.

We reviewed the available stack test data for Hg and non-Hg 

HAP metals from BSCP tunnel kilns to evaluate this suggestion. 

For Hg, we found that all test runs were actually above the 

detection limits. For the non-Hg HAP metals, we found that only 

one of the individual non-Hg HAP metals had a high percentage of 

test runs below the detection limit. We found a high percentage 

of test runs above the detection limits for all the other non-Hg 

HAP metals. For more information on this analysis, please see 

the technical memorandum “Determination of “Non-Detect” Test 

Data for the BSCP Proposed Rule” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0291.

Because Hg and most of the non-Hg HAP metals are emitted 

from BSCP kilns in detectable levels, the EPA believes it is 

technologically practicable to measure these emissions and they 

do not meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards under CAA section 112(h). Consequently, we have 

declined to propose work practice standards for Hg or non-Hg HAP 

metals. Although we are not proposing work practices for HAP 

metals, we are requesting comment on this issue. We are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 149 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

specifically asking for emissions data or any other information 

relevant to the issue of whether the metals emissions from these

sources meet the statutory prerequisite for work practice 

standards in CAA section 112(h).

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Category

This section summarizes the requirements for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing source category proposed in today’s 

action. Section VI of this preamble provides our rationale for 

the proposed requirements.

A. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?

Today’s proposed 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 (toilets and 

sinks).

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

Review***

Page 150 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 today’s proposed rule: (1) kilns that are 

used exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously 

fired products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

(3) wall tile press dryers; and (4) sanitaryware ware dryers.

See section VI.A for information on why these sources are not 

subject to the proposed rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

This proposed Clay Ceramics rule applies to you if you own 

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

Review***

Page 151 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or 

more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 

meet?

1. Emission Limitations

We are proposing emission limits for PM as a surrogate for 

total non-Hg HAP metals for all new and existing ceramic tile 

roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile and 

sanitaryware glazing operations. We are proposing emission 

limits for Hg for all new and existing ceramic tile roller 

kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. 

We are proposing emission limits for dioxin/furan for all new 

and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We 

are also proposing 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 proposed emission limits 

are presented in Table 9 of this preamble.

Table 9–Proposed Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Limits for existing sources
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 152 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Subcategory

Acid gases 

(lb/hr HClequivalent)a

Hg

(lb/ton)

PMb

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)c

Floor tile roller kilns 140 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 44

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 1.9 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 33 --

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 12 --

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 8.8 --

Limits for new sources

Floor tile roller kilns 140 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile press dryers -- -- -- 0.19

Floor tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.17

Wall tile roller kilns 140 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile spray dryers -- -- -- 0.12

Tile glaze lines -- 1.6 E-04 0.61 --

First-fire sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

140 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware manual glaze 

application

-- -- 3.8 --

Sanitaryware spray machine 

glaze application

-- -- 3.2 --

Sanitaryware robot glaze 

application

-- -- 2.2 --

a Limit applies to all kilns at facility. b PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. c ng/dscm = nanograms per dry standard cubic meter.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 153 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2. Work Practice Standards

We are proposing 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 would 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 product produced in the shuttle 

kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) 

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 shuttle kiln, 

including logs to document the proper operation and maintenance 

procedures of the shuttle kilns.

E. What are the startup and shutdown requirements?

The EPA’s position on SSM events is discussed in section 

II.B of this preamble. Standards for periods of startup and 

shutdown are discussed in this section.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 154 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

We are proposing 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 with APCD. For startup, you would be required to vent the 

exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or 

other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln 

exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being 

vented through the APCD. For shutdown, you would be required to 

vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In addition, no ceramics

or other product may be introduced to the kiln once the kiln 

exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer 

being vented through the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being 

vented through the APCD, you would be required to comply with 

the applicable continuous compliance requirements described in 

section V.G of this preamble.

We are also proposing 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. For startup, no ceramics or other 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 155 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or 

dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For shutdown, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer

once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 °F. When 

there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, you would be expected 

to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as 

described in section V.G of this preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards for periods of 

startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as 

described in section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the 

source is operating, including periods of startup and shutdown.

F. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?

We are proposing 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 would need to be conducted before renewing your 

40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least every 5 years 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 156 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

following the initial performance test, as well as when an 

operating limit parameter value is being revised.

Under today’s proposed Clay Ceramics rule, you would need

to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a surrogate for nonHg metals) and dioxins/furans. You would 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 

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 you follow the analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 of Method 320, unless you 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.

Once you have conducted your performance test, you would 

calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed 

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

kilns at your facility, you would sum the HCl-equivalent for 

each kiln using proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 157 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

to get your total facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value 

to the proposed limitation.

We are proposing that you measure PM emissions from ceramic 

tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using 

one of the following methods:

• EPA Method 5, “Determination of Particulate Emissions from 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;

• EPA Method 29, “Determination of Metals Emissions From 

Stationary Sources,” 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where 

you would weigh the filter and report the results as PM 

filterable; or

• Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 

Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 

Provisions.

Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also 

be used to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, 

ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel 

kilns.

We are proposing that you 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 proposing that you measure dioxin/furan 

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor 

tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 158 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EPA Method 23, “Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-pDioxins 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 that are being proposed. Prior to your initial 

performance test, you would need to install the CPMS equipment 

to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

operating limits. During your initial test, you would use the 

CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values that 

represent your operating limits.

If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that you 

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, you would 

need to determine 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. If different 

average feed rate values are measured during the PM and HF/HCl 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 159 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

tests, the highest of the average values becomes your sitespecific operating limit. If you use a BLD system, you would 

need to submit analyses and supporting documentation 

demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications 

for BLD systems.

If you operate a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent 

injection or DLS) and use a BLD system, we are proposing that 

you submit analyses and supporting documentation demonstrating 

conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD

systems.

If you operate a wet scrubber, we are proposing that you 

continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM 

performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) 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, you would 

need 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 your minimum site-specific pressure 

drop, liquid pH, liquid flow rate and chemical addition rate 

operating limits. If different average wet scrubber liquid flow 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 160 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

rate values are measured during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the 

highest of the average values become your site-specific 

operating limits.

If you use an ACI system, we are proposing that you 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 your 

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 your site-specific operating 

limit.

If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are proposing that you measure 

the operating temperature of your process (tunnel or roller 

kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) during 

the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 3-hour block 

average operating temperature. The average of the three test 

runs establishes your site-specific operating limit.

If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel or 

roller kiln, we are proposing that you calculate your maximum 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 161 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

potential HCl-equivalent using proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 

63.8595(g)(1)(i). You would use the results from your 

performance test to determine your emissions at your maximum 

possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of 

your kiln is 10 tph and you conducted your performance test at 9 

tph, then the test results represent 90 percent of your maximum 

potential emissions. If you have multiple kilns at your 

facility, you would need to sum the maximum potential HClequivalent for each kiln to get your total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 

health-based emission limitation for acid gases. If your total 

facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the 

proposed limitation, we are proposing that you determine the 

maximum process rate for which your total facility maximum 

potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the proposed 

limitation. If you have multiple kilns, you would need to 

determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that 

would result in a total facility maximum potential HClequivalent that remains at or below the proposed limitation. The 

maximum process rate(s) would become your operating limit(s) for 

process rate. We are also proposing that you measure the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 162 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

operating temperature of your kiln during the dioxin/furan 

performance test and determine the 3-hour block average 

operating temperature. The average of the three test runs 

establishes your site-specific operating limit for temperature.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

Today’s Clay Ceramics rule proposes that you demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies 

to you. You would have to follow the requirements in your OM&M 

plan and document conformance with your OM&M plan. You would 

need to operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters 

established during your initial performance test as described in 

the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect data at 

least every 15 minutes and you would need to 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) per hour to 

have a valid hour of data. You would have to operate the CPMS at 

all times when the process is operating. You would also have to 

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, you would need to calculate and record the 3-
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 163 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

hour block average values of each operating parameter. To 

calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, you 

would need to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings 

for that period.

If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that you 

demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based 

emission limit 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, you would have to promptly initiate and 

complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You 

would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton of 

fired product basis) at or above the level established during 

your performance test and record the feeder setting once each 

shift.

If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, you have the option to use 

either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance 

with the PM emission limit.

If you use a BLD system, we are proposing that you initiate 

corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm and 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 164 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You 

would also need to 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 you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective action, the alarm time must 

be counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate 

corrective action.

If you choose to monitor VE, we are proposing that you 

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 kiln would need to be operating under normal 

conditions. If VE are observed, you would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 

plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily EPA Method 

22 tests, you may decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 165 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

testing from daily to weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are 

observed during any weekly test, you would have to promptly 

initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 

plan and you would need to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that 

kiln stack on a daily basis until no VE are observed in 30 

consecutive daily tests, at which time you may again decrease 

the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.

If you operate a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that you 

use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 

compliance with the applicable emission limit.

If you operate a wet scrubber, we are proposing that you 

continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber 

pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, 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 

at or above the minimum value established during the PM 

performance test would demonstrate 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 166 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

HF/HCl performance test would demonstrate compliance with the 

acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission limit. 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 would demonstrate compliance with all 

applicable emission limits by showing that the scrubber is in 

proper working order.

If you use an ACI system, we are proposing that you 

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 you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan emission 

limit without an ACI system, we are proposing that you 

demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the operating 

temperature of your process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile 

spray dryer, floor tile press dryer) and maintaining it at or 

above the average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan 

performance test for your tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile 

spray dryer and at or below the average operating temperature
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 167 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

during the dioxin/furan performance test for your floor tile 

press dryer.

If you operate a water curtain on your spray glazing 

operation, we are proposing that you demonstrate compliance with 

the PM emission limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify 

the presence of water flow to the wet control system, conducting

weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control 

equipment for leaks and conducting annual inspections of the 

interior of the control equipment (if applicable) to determine 

the structural integrity and condition of the control equipment.

If you operate baffles on your spray glazing operation, we 

are proposing that you demonstrate compliance with the PM 

emission limit by conducting an annual visual inspection of the 

baffles to confirm the baffles are in place.

If you have affected sources with no APCD, we are proposing 

that, to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit, you 

monitor VE as described above; and, to demonstrate compliance 

with the dioxin/furan emission limit, you continuously monitor 

the operating temperature, determine and record 3-hour block 

averages and maintain the 3-hour block averages at or above the 

average operating temperature during the dioxin/furan 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 168 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

performance test for your tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile 

spray dryer and at or below the average operating temperature

during the dioxin/furan performance test for your floor tile 

press dryer. In addition, if your last calculated total facility 

maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the 

proposed health-based emission limitation for acid gases, then 

we are proposing that you collect and record data documenting 

the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block 

averages. You would need to maintain the kiln process rate(s) at 

or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) that would 

enable your total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent to 

remain at or below the proposed limitation.

H. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements?

All new and existing sources would be required to comply 

with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 

63, subpart A), which are identified in Table 9 of subpart 

KKKKK. The General Provisions include specific requirements for 

notifications, recordkeeping and reporting.

Each owner or operator would be required to submit a 

notification of compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 169 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

63.9(h) of the General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics 

rule would require 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, would 

also be required for each semiannual reporting period.

This proposed Clay Ceramics rule would require 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 proposing that you must keep the 

following records:

• All reports and notifications submitted to comply with this 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule.

• 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 proposed 

Clay Ceramics rule.

• Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.

• Each instance in which you did not meet each emission limit 

(i.e., deviations from operating limits).

• Records of production rates.

• Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 

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

Review***

Page 170 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

• Current copies of your 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.

We are also proposing to require that you submit the 

following reports and notifications:

• Notifications required by the General Provisions.

• Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 

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

Review***

Page 171 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

The ERT provisions being proposed for clay ceramics 

manufacturing are the same as those being proposed for BSCP 

manufacturing. The ERT provisions for BSCP manufacturing are 

discussed in section III.I of this preamble.

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated 

under the proposed rule?

Based on our review of the available information on the 

clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there 

are three distinct sectors within the industry: (1) ceramic 

floor tile; (2) ceramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware. 

Specifically, we found that the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall 

tile and sanitaryware sectors of the industry differ in terms of 

raw materials, processes and final products.

The primary raw materials used for manufacturing 

sanitaryware are ball clay, other clays, feldspar and silica, 

whereas ceramic tile is made primarily from ball clay, talc, 

nepheline syenite (an igneous rock comprised of nepheline, 

microcline and albite), fire clay and shale. However, while the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 172 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall tile, the 

mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball clay, 

resulting in a lighter-weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic 

floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic 

mix into a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press 

dryers to press the tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to 

firing in a roller kiln. Ceramic wall tile facilities also use 

spray and press dryers, but they are designed, managed and

operated to handle the lighter weight raw material mix. Ceramic 

wall tile is produced in a two-step firing process using roller 

kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the other hand, 

sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the ceramic 

ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using 

glaze spraying.

Ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware also 

have different characteristics as finished products and compete 

in different markets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a 

vitreous product with a low water absorption rate. Floor tile is 

known for its multi-color, variably-textured, and slip-resistant 

characteristics, which are not acceptable in most wall tiles.

Ceramic wall tile is defined as a non-vitreous product required 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 173 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20 percent, much higher 

than that required for floor tile. Wall tile has much more 

stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile, with 

the market demanding that most wall tile be mono-color, with a 

high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two-step firing 

process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low 

absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom 

fixtures and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sinks).

In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost 

sources of HAP emissions are first-fire tunnel and periodic 

(shuttle) kilns at sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at 

ceramic tile facilities. Based on emissions testing, the HAP 

emitted from first-fire tunnel kilns and roller kilns include 

HF, HCl, Hg, other non-Hg HAP metals and dioxins/furans. Shuttle 

kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants based on 

similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and firstfire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay 

ceramics manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ 

glaze spraying at ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at 

sanitaryware facilities, spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities

and press dryers at floor tile facilities. The HAP emitted from 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 174 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

ceramic tile glaze lines include Hg and non-Hg HAP metals, the 

HAP emitted from sanitaryware glazing operations include non-Hg 

HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic tile spray dryers 

and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process units at clay 

ceramics facilities (e.g., raw material processing and handling, 

wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers) have not 

been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP.54 For this 

reason, the proposed Clay Ceramics rule covers those existing 

and new first-fire kilns, glaze spray operations, spray dryers

and press dryers at major source clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities that emit HAP and meet the applicability criteria.

Additional clay ceramics process units that do not meet the 

applicability criteria include (1) kilns that are used 

exclusively for refiring or setting glazes on previously fired 

products; (2) glaze spray operations that use wet glazes 

containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis); 

and (3) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method.

 54 As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware 

ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of the tests found 

detectable levels of dioxins/furans.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 175 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Re-fire kilns are used for firing products that have 

already been fired but have minor defects, which are 

subsequently repaired. Nearly all of the emissions from the 

firing of a clay body (i.e., fluorides, chlorides) are released 

during the initial vitrification step conducted in first-fire 

kilns, while re-fire ware has already been vitrified and emits 

little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used 

exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also 

emit little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons. Glaze spray 

operations using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent 

metal HAP are expected to be an insignificant source of HAP 

emissions. Glaze applied using a flow (curtain) coating or 

waterfall method rather than using an aerosol spraying method 

would have little to no air emissions of non-Hg HAP metals.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals)

emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and first-fire 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed Clay Ceramics rule

includes numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant 

emitted per ton of product produced. For non-Hg HAP metals

emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware glaze 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 176 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics rule includes 

numerical emission rate limits for PM as a mass of pollutant 

emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For Hg emissions from ceramic 

tile glaze lines, this proposed rule includes numerical emission 

rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze 

sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller 

kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and

first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed rule 

includes numerical emission limits in units of concentration. 

The selection of numerical emission rate limits and numerical 

emission limits as the format for this proposed Clay Ceramics 

rule provides flexibility for the regulated community by 

allowing a regulated source to choose any control technology or 

technique to meet the emission limits, rather than requiring 

each unit to use a prescribed control method that may not be 

appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of 

numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted 

per ton of product produced ensures that differences in the size 

or process rate of the affected source do not affect the level

of emissions control achieved.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 177 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals. The same control techniques that would be used to 

control PM will control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter 

was also chosen instead of requiring control of specific 

individual HAP metals because all sources do not emit the same 

type and amount of non-Hg HAP metals due to differences in raw 

materials and glaze formulations. However, most sources 

generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of 

HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the 

cost of performance testing to comply with numerous standards 

for individual non-Hg HAP metals.

For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics 

rule includes a health-based emission limit as a mass of HClequivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion about the 

development of health-based standards for the proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule is provided in section VI.J of this preamble.

This proposed Clay Ceramics rule includes work practices 

for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in more detail in 

section VI.K.1 of this preamble, technological and economic 

limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with

numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns.

Comment [DK13]: For the BSCP source 

category, EPA explained that some 

owners/operators may find that 

meeting a total non-Hg HAP metals 

limit is less costly than meeting a 

PM limit and provided that

flexibility of using an alternative 

compliance option for total non-Hg 

HAP metals. Does EPA have reason to 

believe that would not be the case 

for this source category? Or is 

there some other reason why EPA is 

only providing the option of 

meeting the PM standard as a 

surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals?

Comment [TJ14]: We do not have the 

data needed to establish an 

alternative non-Hg HAP metals

numerical limit for the clay 

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

Review***

Page 178 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate 

emission standards for either categories or subcategories of 

sources. Through subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish 

among classes, types and sizes of sources within a category.

1. Sanitaryware Kilns

Upon initial consideration of the available information on 

the sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing 

industry, we determined that separate subcategories for 

sanitaryware periodic (shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware 

continuous (tunnel) kilns were warranted because shuttle kilns 

are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an 

hourly basis and accounting for only a small percentage of 

production) and are operated in batch cycles, whereas tunnel 

kilns operate continuously.

As noted in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, we have 

determined that it is technologically and economically 

infeasible to test shuttle kilns, thereby ruling out a 

quantitative analysis of how these differences impact emissions. 

However, a qualitative comparison can be made, in that smaller 

kilns operated periodically (i.e., shuttle kilns) would be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 179 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the 

larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.

2. Sanitaryware Glazing

We also determined that separate subcategories for three 

different glaze application methods for sanitaryware were 

warranted. Manual glaze spraying is done by a human operator 

with one spray gun per station per booth. The ware are moved and 

set up manually and glaze is applied to one to two pieces at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods. Spray 

machine or chain-on-edge, glaze application is done by automatic 

reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10 to 20 

spray guns per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a “chainon-edge” conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to seven

pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for 

this type of glaze spraying are the second highest of the 

application methods. Robot glaze spraying is done by an 

automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The ware are 

moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at a 

time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of 

glaze spraying are the lowest of the application methods.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 180 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and 

non-manual spraying (where “non-manual spraying” would include 

both spray machine and robot glaze spraying), but we determined 

that the design and emission differences between spray machine 

and robot glaze spraying are significant enough to warrant 

separate subcategories.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the 

proposed emission limitations for existing and new sources?

As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, all standards 

for new and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 

112(d)(2) must reflect MACT. The remainder of this section 

describes the development of the pool of data used to calculate 

the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 

metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in section VI.J of this 

preamble, health-based emissions standards are being proposed 

for the acid gases HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA 

section 112(d)(4). Consequently, the EPA has not prepared a MACT 

floor analysis for these pollutants.

In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for 

non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we separated the data by 

industry sector, source type and subcategory as described in 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 181 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

section VI.C of this preamble (if applicable). Within each of 

those categories or subcategories, we ranked the data in terms 

of lb/ton for PM and Hg and in terms of nanograms per dry 

standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7 percent O2 for dioxins/furans 

(as described in section VI.E of this preamble). Because there 

are less than 30 sources in each subcategory, we identified the 

top five (best performing) sources for which we had data. For 

subcategories with less than five sources, we considered all 

sources for which we had data as best performing sources. Once 

we identified the best performing sources, we then calculated 

the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent O2 (as 

applicable) as described in section VI.E of this preamble.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing 

sources?

The EPA must consider available emissions information to 

determine the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total 

non-Hg metals) and dioxins/furans, we calculated the MACT floor 

for a subcategory of sources by ranking all the available 

emissions data for units within the subcategory with the best 

performing sources ranked at the top, as described later in this 

section and then using the test results from the best performing
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 182 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

sources (up to five). Therefore, as discussed in section VI.D of 

this preamble, the MACT floor limits for Hg, PM (as a surrogate 

for total non-Hg metals) and dioxins/furans were calculated 

based on the performance of the best performing sources in each 

of the subcategories.

The best performing sources were determined by ranking each 

source’s average emission value from lowest to highest. We then 

determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the 

top five best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as 

described in section IV.E of this preamble. We assessed 

variability of the best performers by calculating a UPL using 

the appropriate equation based on the data distribution. The UPL 

takes into consideration the average performance of the unit and 

the variability of the test runs during the testing conditions. 

As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL 

represents the value which one can expect the mean of a 

specified number of future observations (e.g., 3-run average) to 

fall below for the specified level of confidence, based upon the 

results of an independent sample from the same population. It is 

a standard statistical methodology used to account for 

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

Review***

Page 183 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used, 

including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of 

kurtosis, skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the 

calculated UPL value for each pollutant and subcategory. As 

described in section IV.E of this preamble, we used the greater 

of the 3xRDL value and calculated UPL value to ensure that

measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT 

floor emissions limit. This check was part of the variability 

analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL run 

data present in the best performing data sets (see the technical 

memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290).

As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in 

setting floors, not only because variability is an element of 

performance, but because it is reasonable to assess best 

performance over time. We believe this approach reasonably 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 184 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

ensures that the emission limits selected as the MACT floors 

adequately represent the level of emissions actually achieved by 

the average of the best performing units, considering 

operational variability of those units. Both the analysis of the 

measured emissions from units representative of the best 

performers and the variability analysis are reasonably designed 

to provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or

central tendency, of the best performing five units in a given 

subcategory. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology 

is presented in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

Table 10 of this preamble presents the average emission 

level of the best performing sources and the existing source 

MACT floor. Each subcategory had less than 30 sources 

nationwide; thus, the top five sources were used in the MACT 

floor. If we had data for less than five sources, we used all 

the data available. The existing source MACT floors are based on 

the UPL unless otherwise noted.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 185 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Table 10—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

7.8 E-05 0.054 2.9

MACT floor 1.3 E-04 0.18 4.6

Floor tile 

press dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.078 

MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.96 

MACT floor -- -- 44

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of best performing

sources

2.0 E-05 0.67 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 1.9 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of best performing

sources

1.6 E-04 0.12 0.81

MACT floor 2.6 E-04 0.33 1.5

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 14 --

MACT floor -- 33 --

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 5.9 --

MACT floor -- 12 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of best performing

sources

-- 4.4 --

MACT floor -- 8.8 --

a The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 186 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for 

new sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble. This 

approach reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as 

the MACT floor adequately represents the average level of 

control actually achieved in practice by the best controlled 

similar source, considering ordinary operational variability. A 

detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented 

in the technical memorandum “Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics” in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

Table 11 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory 

and pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing

similar source and the new source MACT floor. The new source 

MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

Table 11—Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics New 

Sourcesa

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 3.5 E-05 0.020 1.1

MACT floor 3.9 E-05 0.027 1.5

Floor tile Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.070
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 187 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Subcategory Parameter

Hgb

(lb/ton)

PMb,c

(lb/ton)

Dioxins/furans

(ng/dscm at 7 

percent O2)

press dryers MACT floor -- -- 0.19d

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.010

MACT floor -- -- 0.17d

Wall tile 

roller kilns

Avg. of top performer 5.0 E-05 0.071 0.065

MACT floor 2.0 E-04 0.20 0.17

Wall tile 

spray dryers

Avg. of top performer -- -- 0.053

MACT floor -- -- 0.12d

Tile glaze 

lines

Avg. of top performer 7.4 E-06 0.15 --

MACT floor 1.6 E-04d 0.61 --

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Avg. of top performer 6.4 E-05 0.092 0.23

MACT floor 1.2 E-04 0.095 0.37

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 3.3 --

MACT floor -- 3.8 --

Sanitaryware 

spray 

machine 

glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 2.0 --

MACT floor -- 3.2 --

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Avg. of top performer -- 1.3 --

MACT floor -- 2.2 --

a The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted. b Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton 

glaze sprayed.

c PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals. d The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit 

to limited datasets?

As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, there are 

specific considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 188 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the clay ceramics source category, we have limited datasets for 

the following pollutants and subcategories: 

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new floor tile roller kilns;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;

• dioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;

• Hg and dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile roller 

kilns;

• dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray dryers;

• Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;

• Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel 

kilns; and

• PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, and robot 

glaze spray booths.

For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the 

memorandum titled “Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction 

Limit to Limited Datasets,” which is available in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; see that memorandum for more information 

on the analysis and the results.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing

sources?

As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, 

the EPA must consider emissions limitations and requirements 

that are more stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-thefloor 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 189 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

energy and non-air quality health and environmental impacts when 

doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete for 

each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more 

stringent than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the 

performance of technologies that could result in lower 

emissions) for the different subcategories.

We considered requiring each subcategory of existing 

sources to meet the new source MACT floors developed as 

described in section VI.F of this preamble. We analyzed the 

beyond-the-floor options for each pollutant separately for each 

subcategory of existing sources. Our analyses are documented in 

the technical memorandum “Development of Cost and Emission 

Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and summarized in the following paragraphs.

For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on 

the data available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns 

could meet the new source MACT floor emission limits described 

in section VI.F of this preamble without incurring additional 

emission control costs. Therefore, we are proposing a beyondthe-floor Hg limit for existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns 

equivalent to the new source MACT floor.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 190 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

For several sources and pollutants, the existing source 

MACT floor and the new source MACT floor are the same value, 

usually because there is only one source with data in the 

subcategory or because both floors are based on the 3xRDL value. 

These sources/pollutants include dioxins/furans from floor tile 

press dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals), 

Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns, 

dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic 

tile glaze lines. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond-thefloor limits for these sources and pollutants.

The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost 

effectiveness for all other beyond-the-floor options are 

summarized by subcategory and by pollutant in Table 12 of this 

preamble. In all these cases, we have concluded that the 

incremental costs of additional control above the MACT floor 

emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level of 

emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to 

go beyond-the-floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant 

concentrations included in Table 12 of this preamble.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 191 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Table 12-Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions and Cost 

Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond-the-Floor 

Options (2011 dollars)

Subcategory Pollutant

Cost (million) Incremental 

HAP 

Emissions 

Reductions 

(tpy)

Cost Effectiveness 

Capital Annual ($/ton total HAP)

Floor tile 

roller kilns

Hg $4.14 $3.16 0.044 $71,800,000

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$10.8 $4.28 0.73 $5,830,000

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.32 $1.77 8.5 E-07 $2,080,000,000,000

Floor tile 

spray dryers

Dioxins/ 

furans

$0.335 $0.278 4.6 E-08 $5,990,000,000,000

Tile glaze 

lines

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$7.67 $2.70 0.038 $70,600,000

First-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kilns

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$3.91 $2.01 0.020 $102,000,000

Dioxins/ 

furans

$2.98 $1.78 3.4 E-08 $51,700,000,000,00

0

Sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$6.78 $2.19 0.24 $9,090,000

Sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$1.89 $0.900 0.14 $6,420,000

Sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

Total nonHg HAP 

metals

$4.97 $2.22 0.097 $23,000,000

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new 

sources for each pollutant was based on the emission control 

that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 192 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

source within each of the subcategories. When we establish a 

beyond-the-floor standard, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to achieve an emissions limit 

more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques were 

identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for any of the subcategories for each 

pollutant. Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-thefloor limit for any of the new sources in this proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based 

standards for existing and new sources?

In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics rule, we 

considered whether it was appropriate to establish health-based 

emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid 

gases HF and HCl. The rationale for the development of healthbased standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics rule is the same 

as that presented for the proposed BSCP rule, with a few 

exceptions, which are discussed in the sections below. The 

rationale for the development of health-based standards for the 

proposed BSCP rule is discussed in section IV.J of this 

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

Review***

Page 193 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its 

discretion whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?

Section IV.J of this preamble discusses the following 

factors that the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to 

set a standard based on the health threshold or the traditional 

MACT process:

• The availability of data to set the health-based standard;

• Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT standard, 

such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 

criteria pollutants;

• The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the 

pollutant; and

• The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due to 

concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with 

similar biological endpoints, from either the same or other 

source categories, where the concentration of the threshold 

pollutant emitted from the given source category is below 

the threshold.

The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of 

data, co-benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly 

identical for both the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. 

However, further analysis was required concerning the last 

factor (potential for cumulative adverse health effects). The 

evaluation of all four factors for the clay ceramics industry is 

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

Review***

Page 194 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

a. Availability of Data to Determine Standard

Like the BSCP rule, because of the relatively small number 

of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT 

proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility-specific 

information for the Clay Ceramics rule, including tunnel and 

roller kiln locations and operating characteristics and stack 

parameters, available for all clay ceramics facilities to assess 

the feasibility of health-based standards in this proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule. Such information enabled us to conduct the 

dispersion modeling necessary to establish a health-based 

emission limit for acid gases.55

Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough 

information to determine the health-based emission standards for 

the acid gases HF and HCl for the clay ceramics industry. As 

discussed in further detail below, these limits have been 

developed to ensure that exposure is below the health threshold 

 55 For more information, see the technical memorandum “Risk Assessment to 

Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay 

Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 195 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

for each facility and also ensure that acute exposures will not 

pose any health concerns.56

b. Co-benefits

The additional nationwide SO2 reductions that would be 

attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are 

estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation 

of the proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, this reduction is 

substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for 

other industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a 

health-based limit,57 and it would not be expected to provide a 

significant public health benefit in the circumstances here.

 56 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1 (September 9, 

2010) (“[W]e currently lack information on the peak short-term emissions of 

HCl from cement kilns which might allow us to determine whether a chronic 

health-based emission standard for HCl would ensure that acute exposures will 

not pose health concerns.”) 57 See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970 (September 9, 2010) –

Co-benefits was identified as the “decisive factor” in the Portland Cement 

NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970, 54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a healthbased standard for HCl where setting a MACT standard also controlled other 

HAP and criteria pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP 

gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (“The additional reductions of SO2 alone 

attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are estimated to be 124,000 tons 

per year” and discussing both direct SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a 

precursor to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (“[Other HAP gases (chlorine (Cl2), 

hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen fluoride (HF))] are also controlled 

during the process of controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet 

scrubber. As such, their health impacts must be taken into account when 

considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.” See also Boiler MACT 

Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (“EPA considered the comments received on this 

issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits are significant and 

provide an additional basis for the Administrator to conclude that it is not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 196 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

c. Ecosystem Impacts

For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the 

acid gases HCl and HF around each clay ceramics facility. For 

HCl, the environmental risk screen indicated that the areaweighted average modeled concentrations of HCl around each 

facility (i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all 

offsite data points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the 

ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological benchmark was 

not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any facility.

For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 

area-weighted average modeled concentrations of 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. There were multiple facilities with 

modeled concentrations of HF at offsite receptor locations that 

exceeded the ecological benchmark, but the area over which the 

 appropriate to exercise her discretion under section 112(d)(4).”) and Boiler 

MACT Proposed Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010) – Co-benefits from MACT 

standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the reduction of 

340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP 

acid gases (hydrogen bromide)and mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 

24976, 25051/1 – Co-benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate 

for HAP metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of SO2 and 

unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and 

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

Review***

Page 197 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

value was exceeded was no greater than one percent of the 

offsite modeling domain for each facility, indicating that there 

would not be any significant or widespread environmental 

effects.

d. Cumulative Effects

As noted previously, the EPA may consider the availability

of information on emissions from co-located and nearby sources 

and consider if it is feasible to determine the potential 

cumulative health effects from emissions from the sources in the 

category when combined with other emissions from other sources 

that are co-located or located nearby. Relevant emissions may 

include both emissions of the same pollutant and emissions of 

other pollutants that may cause cumulative effects.

Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA 

survey and the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information 

on the locations of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF 

and HCl emitted from those plants. While the major source 

ceramic tile plants are not co-located with any other type of 

operation, the three major source sanitaryware plants are. 

However, the sources co-located with the sanitaryware plants do 

not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co-located with the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 198 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly 

particulates and metals, while the fiberglass plants co-located 

with the sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and 

Brownwood, Texas emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). 

Consequently, any acid gas emissions from co-located sources are 

not expected to impact the total facility acid gas emissions 

significantly.

Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are 

typically located on large tracts of land needed for all of the 

processes involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw 

material receiving, storage and processing; glaze preparation; 

forming; drying; glazing; firing; product inspection; and 

packaging. This provides an additional buffer between the clay 

ceramics plants and the surrounding area. Because of the 

relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from the clay 

ceramics plants are located close to the facility property line. 

In trying to define cumulative risks from non-clay ceramics 

emissions, the location and emissions associated with other 

sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far less 

certain. While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey data 

for clay ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 199 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

and scientists, the emissions levels and locations of other 

facilities such as those in the NEI have not undergone the same 

level of detailed review. Thus, a quantitative analysis of 

nearby emissions would contain a great deal of uncertainty.

However, as discussed above, because of the large footprint of 

these plants and the clay ceramics risks being confined to the 

near plant locations, we do not expect that the combined 

emissions of HF or HCl from clay ceramics facilities and other 

sources would result in substantial cumulative health and 

environmental effects.

2. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?

As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its 

discretion to use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is 

consistent with the EPA’s prior decisions where we found it 

appropriate not to exercise the discretion to invoke the 

authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid gases, because the 

circumstances in this case differ from those previous 

considerations. We request comment on the analysis and 

conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.

Following from the EPA’s determination that a health-based 

standard is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 200 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the health 

effects on which the threshold is based.

• There must be no observable adverse effect.

• The standard must not allow greater adverse environmental 

effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be 

established.

• A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from 

compliance based on a showing that the source’s emissions 

do not pose a health risk.

As part of the development of the proposed standards, we 

have maintained an inventory of major source facilities, 

including the size and operating hours of each tunnel and roller 

kiln and the geographic location and physical attributes (e.g., 

stack height, diameter, exit gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. 

To develop a health-based emission limit, both long-term and 

short-term inhalation exposure concentrations and health risks 

from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category were 

estimated using the HEM-3 model as described in section IV.J.3 

of this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling 

approach is presented in the technical memorandum, “Risk 

Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for 

Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category” 

in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we 

used the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 201 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

each acid gas emitted by each source in the source category. The 

air concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were 

used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 

concentration for all the people who reside in that census 

block. Chronic noncancer health hazards are expressed by 

comparing a chronic exposure to a reference level as a ratio. 

Because we performed HEM-3 model runs for each acid gas 

individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid 

gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at 

clay ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl-equivalent 

emissions (based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI 

of 1 is not exceeded, as long as the HCl-equivalent emissions do 

not exceed 600 tpy. It is important to note that this emission 

limit is only applicable to the sources in this source category 

and should not be considered for sources other than those 

included in this analysis. Equivalent emissions for HF are 

determined by the ratio of the chronic RfC to that for HCl, such 

that the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF are 420 tpy.

Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic 

dose-response values, the 600 tpy level does not necessarily 

ensure that acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 202 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

HCl model runs, there were no facilities with acute screening HQ 

values exceeding 1. For HF, we estimate that two of the eight 

facilities examined had an acute value exceed the REL with the 

highest being two. However, no facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL-1) 

value for HF. 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).

It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds 

are developed from back-calculating the emissions that would 

result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks 

at other facilities (not the worst-case facility) are predicted 

to be well below 1.

Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each 

tunnel and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling 

to ensure that: (1) the health-based emission limit cited above 

for clay ceramics facilities provides an ample margin of safety 

and (2) persons exposed to emissions of the pollutant would not 

experience the adverse health effects on which the threshold is 

based. In addition, as stated previously, the levels of acid gas 

emissions associated with clay ceramics kilns, based on results 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 203 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

from the EPA’s environmental risk screen methodology outlined 

above, are not expected to have an adverse environmental impact.

Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the healthbased emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl and 

HF emissions, calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF 

using RfC values and adding the HCl emissions to the HClequivalent value to calculate the total HCl-equivalent 

emissions. An equation to perform this calculation is provided 

in the proposed Clay Ceramics rule. For more information on the 

development of the health-based standard, see the technical 

memorandum “Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based 

Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing Source Category” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-

0290. For more information on the calculation of an HClequivalent value, see the technical memorandum “Development of 

Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice 

standards for existing and new sources?

Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice 

standards in place of an emissions standard where it is not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 204 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. The EPA 

is proposing to conclude that an emissions standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible because the 

application of measurement methodology to these sources is not 

practicable due to technological and economic limitations. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a work practice standard for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits for acid 

gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The rationale for 

this work practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs 

below.

1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of 

Emission Standards

a. Overview

Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities are a type of 

periodic kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have 

been machined and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used 

as first-fire units). Shuttle kilns are designed with a 

removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. The main 

advantage of this type of kiln is that it can readily 

accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cycle time 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 205 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

to match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. 

The primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher 

energy costs per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller 

kilns.58

Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a batch 

starts cold and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates 

shuttle kilns on batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the 

most common cycle times between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle 

kilns operate through a heating cycle, temperatures are either 

in ramp-up or cool-down mode.59

b. Emissions and Testing

Emission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the 

temperature cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine 

the total emissions from a shuttle kiln cycle, emissions from 

the entire cycle period would need to be tested.60 As with 

testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

for any less time could result in estimated emissions that are 

 58 See the memorandum titled “Characterization of the Ceramic Manufacturing 

Industry” in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP docket, incorporated by 

reference into the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.

59 See the email titled “Kohler’s response to EPA question regarding options 

for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,” in the 

docket for this proposed rule.

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

Review***

Page 206 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

either higher or lower than actual emissions, depending on when 

during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled.61

Conducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle 

time would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 

hours and would require the test team to have at least a dozen 

or more sampling train set-ups or additional manpower on site to 

recover samples and turn-around sampling trains for subsequent 

use during the test. It is estimated that the test of a single 

shuttle kiln firing cycle with analysis would cost $20,000 or 

more (2009 dollars). As with BSCP periodic kilns, sampling a 

single firing cycle might not be adequate for characterizing 

shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during firing cycles 

and variations across tests. To collect three test runs of data, 

two additional cycles would need to be tested, bringing the cost 

to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln.

Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule have three or more shuttle kilns 

each, requiring additional tests at each facility.62

 61 See the memorandum entitled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. 62 See the sanitaryware industry communication titled “Kohler’s response to 

EPA question regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 207 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

c. Test Methods and Costs

As noted in section VI.K.1.a of this preamble, when EPA

Method 26 or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if 

emissions are variable and experience large spikes, as appears 

to be the case for BSCP periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware 

shuttle kilns could encounter a similar problem. Another 

disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for testing throughout 

shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional manpower to 

operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover 

samples.63

An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the 

tests using FTIR according to EPA Method 320, where HCl 

breakthrough is not an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides 

near real-time emissions data. However, the cost for FTIR 

testing would be similarly expensive as testing by Method 26 or 

26A throughout an entire cycle. The cost for testing by FTIR is 

estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single 50-hour kiln 

cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln). 

Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25-hour 

 should be addressed,” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. 63 See the RTI memorandum titled “Rationale for Establishing Work Practice 

Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 208 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cost to test one cycle 

would still be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars)). If 

it were determined that the variations in emissions from cycle 

to cycle were significant, it might be necessary to test each 

kiln for two or more cycles in order to develop a representative 

emission rate. Testing for a second cycle would double the 

testing cost to almost $50,000 and testing for a third cycle 

would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars). In 

addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurred for 

testing the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be 

tested using a manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 5 or 17). 

If additional shuttle kilns needed to be tested at each 

facility, the costs would be even higher.64

While no formal cost-to-sales analysis was conducted for 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP 

periodic kilns (see section IV.K.1 of this preamble), a similar 

informal analysis was performed using the sales and production 

data provided in the 2008 EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI 

by the respondent). Based on this analysis, a similar conclusion 

(that testing is not economically feasible) can be reached.

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

Review***

Page 209 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Because the test costs are similar and shuttle kilns represent a 

small share of total sanitaryware production and revenues, the 

EPA has concluded that it would not be economically feasible to 

require testing for shuttle kilns.

d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns

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. CAA section 

112(h)(2)(B) 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.”

Because of the technological and economic limitations 

described above, we conclude that it is not practicable to 

establish numerical emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle 

kilns. Demonstrating compliance with a numerical emissions limit 

for shuttle kilns is technologically limited to testing 

procedures that are economically infeasible for the sanitaryware 

industry. Consequently, we are proposing a work practice 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 210 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under CAA section 

112(h).

2. Work Practice Standard

The work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns 

proposed in today’s Clay Ceramics rule includes the following 

specific provisions:65

• Each facility would have to use natural gas or equivalent

as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas 

curtailment or supply interruption.

• Each facility would have to develop and use a designed 

firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced 

in the shuttle kiln, by programming the time and 

temperature cycle into the kiln or by tracking each step on 

a log sheet.

• Each facility would have to label each shuttle kiln with 

the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln 

during a single firing cycle.

• For each firing load, each facility would have to limit the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the 

maximum load and each facility would have to document the 

total tonnage placed in the kiln to show that it is not 

greater than the maximum load.

• Each facility would have to develop and implement 

maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of the following 

items:

o Calibration of temperature measuring devices

o Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios

o Controls that regulate firing cycles

• Each facility would have to develop and maintain records 

required for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document 

 65 See the BSCP industry communication titled “Periodic kiln language,” in the 

docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.

Comment [DK15]: Does EPA have 

suggestions for how frequently 

inspection and maintenance should

occur?

Comment [TJ16]: Frequency would be 

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

Review***

Page 211 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the 

maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard.

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown 

requirements?

As stated in section V.E of this preamble, we are proposing 

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. We are not proposing 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown for 

ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze spray booths.

As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel 

kilns and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and 

shutdowns are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln 

involves starting up the burners based on a set procedure to 

raise the temperature of the kiln to the proper operational 

temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. Shutdown of a 

roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling the kiln from 

the proper operational temperature by stopping the burners based 

on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a dryer 

is the process of raising the temperature to the proper 

operational temperature or lowering the temperature from the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 212 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. 

When the temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper 

operational temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware 

manufacturers typically do not push ceramics into the kiln, so 

the emissions are expected to be much lower during startup and 

shutdown than during normal operations.

While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational 

temperature during startup or cooling from the operational 

temperature during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust 

flow rate, moisture content, O2 concentration and pressure are 

also changing. In addition, the changes in these parameters may 

not happen smoothly and consistently as startup or shutdown 

progresses, as the kiln or dryer does not heat or cool evenly. 

The fluctuations in all these parameters are not consistent with 

the relatively steady-state conditions needed for valid, 

accurate results over three test runs using the measurement 

methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if 

testing were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission 

limit formats chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics rule are 

not appropriate for use during periods other than normal 

operation. Specifically, if there is no throughout in the kiln 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 213 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

or dryer, emission limits that are in a mass per throughput 

format would be essentially meaningless.

We did not receive any detailed information through the 

2010 EPA survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile 

roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns 

or sanitaryware tunnel kilns are fired at similar or slightly 

higher temperatures to BSCP tunnel kilns and they would likely 

use similar APCD to comply with the standards. Therefore, we 

expect that the issues described in section IV.E of this 

preamble associated with venting low-temperature kiln exhaust 

through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an 

APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer,

ceramic tile spray dryer or sanitaryware tunnel kiln. We also 

expect that the low temperature set points would be about the 

same as for BSCP tunnel kilns, as those temperatures are based 

on the tolerance of the APCD.

Therefore, we are proposing 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 with APCD. For startup, you would be 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 214 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the 

APCD by the time the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 

400 °F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be 

introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 400 °F and the exhaust is being vented 

through the APCD. For shutdown, you would be required to vent 

the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD until the 

kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below 300 °F. In 

addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the 

kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls 

to 300 °F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the 

APCD. When the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the 

APCD, you would be required to comply with the applicable 

continuous compliance requirements described in section V.G of 

this preamble.

For ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers,

ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can 

meet the proposed standards without an APCD, there are no 

concerns about damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an 

APCD. In addition, we did not receive any data through the 2010 

EPA survey regarding startup and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 215 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

However, as noted above, we recognize that it is not feasible to 

conduct emission testing during periods of startup and shutdown.

Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for periods 

of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns or 

sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup, no 

ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer 

until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 °F. For 

shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln 

or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 

°F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or dryer, you would be 

expected to demonstrate compliance with the emissions 

limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble).

We are not proposing alternate standards (either work 

practice standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for 

periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or 

sanitaryware glaze spray booths. These sources would be expected 

to comply with the emissions limitations (as described in 

section V.G of this preamble) at all times when the source is 

operating, including periods of startup and shutdown. We did not 

receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey suggesting that 

alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown are 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 216 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in 

nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and 

shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions 

during normal operations.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that 

are adequate to assure continuous compliance with the 

requirements of this proposed Clay Ceramics rule. These 

requirements are described in detail in sections V.F and V.G of 

this preamble. We selected these requirements based upon our 

determination of the information necessary to ensure that the 

emission standards are being met and the work practices are 

being followed and that APCD and equipment are maintained and 

operated properly. Further, these proposed requirements ensure 

compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics rule without 

imposing a significant additional burden for facilities that 

must implement them.

We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission 

limits for HF, HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by 

an initial performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics rule 

would also require 5-year repeat performance tests to ensure, on 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 217 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

an ongoing basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that 

its performance has not deteriorated.

The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule would require for the performance stack tests 

(e.g., EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many 

other EPA standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the 

proposed emission limits are based were conducted using these 

test methods.

When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that 

parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To 

ensure continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, 

the proposed Clay Ceramics rule would require continuous 

parameter monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these 

parameters within the operating limits established during the 

performance test. We selected these parameter monitoring 

requirements because they produce data that will be useful to 

both the owners or operators and the EPA for ensuring continuous 

compliance with the emission limits and/or operating limits and

because of their reasonable cost and ease of execution.

The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed 

rule were chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 218 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

ceramics industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the 

proposed emission limits. These parameters include lime 

injection rate (on a per ton of fired product basis) for DIFF 

and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid flow rate and chemical 

addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers; activated 

carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for water 

curtains; annual inspections for baffles; and pressure drop for 

cyclones. If applicable for demonstrating compliance with the 

HF/HCl standard, the kiln monitoring parameter included in the 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule is the kiln process rate. To 

demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan standard for those 

affected sources without an ACI system, the monitoring parameter 

included in the proposed Clay Ceramics rule is the operating 

temperature for the affected process (tunnel or roller kiln, 

ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile press dryer), because the 

formation and destruction of dioxins/furans are influenced by 

temperature conditions. Many of these CPMS are standard features 

on ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel kilns and 

their associated APCD and have also been used in other standards 

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

Review***

Page 219 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule also includes a requirement for kilns equipped 

with a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone FF) to either 

install a BLD system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being 

proposed, BLD systems have also been used in other standards in 

similar industries. We have also determined that periodic VE 

checks are a reasonable alternative to BLD systems for this 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule. Periodic VE checks have also been 

proposed for affected sources without an add-on control to 

demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed 

rule?

Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which 

affected sources must comply with the emission standards. Under 

CAA section 112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in 

compliance with this proposed rule immediately upon startup or 

the effective date of the final rule, whichever is later. (The

final action is expected to be a “major rule” as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of the final rule is 

expected to be 60 days after the final rule is published in 

the Federal Register.)
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 220 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed 

up to 3 years after the effective date of the rule to comply 

with the final rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years 

for compliance is necessary to allow adequate time to design, 

install and test any control systems that may need to be 

retrofitted onto existing sources, as well as obtain permits for 

the use of add-on controls.

The compliance data for existing area sources that 

subsequently become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 

63.6(c)(5). We are proposing that such sources have 3 years from 

the date they become major sources to come into compliance, 

which is equivalent to the compliance period for existing 

sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further, under the 

current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area source 

becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or 

operations that meet the definition of new affected source under 

this rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new 

affected source must be in compliance upon initial startup.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 221 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports 

for the proposed rule?

We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to 

comply with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions, subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9

of the proposed Clay Ceramics rule. We evaluated the General 

Provisions requirements and included those we determined to be 

the notification, recordkeeping and reporting necessary to 

ensure compliance with and effective enforcement of, this 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule.

We are also proposing that you keep records on the firing 

time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, 

the type of product fired in each batch and the amount of 

product fired in the shuttle kiln, to address the operational 

factors that impact HAP emissions from shuttle kilns and 

demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard for 

shuttle kilns (discussed further in section VI.K.1 of this 

preamble).

In addition, we are proposing that you keep records and 

submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective action 

taken as part of the next semiannual compliance report. The 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 222 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

proposed compliance report would provide information on each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused an exceedance of an emission 

limit.

This proposed Clay Ceramics rule also includes a 

requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, 

which is discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics 

rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit issued 

under an EPA-approved State operating permit program. The 

operating permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA 

and the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. 

If you are operating in the first 3 years of your operating 

permit, you will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate 

this Clay Ceramics rule. If you are in the last 2 years of your 

operating permit, you will need to incorporate this Clay 

Ceramics rule into the next renewal of your permit.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 223 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts 

of the Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

Table 13 of this preamble illustrates the costs and 

emissions reductions for existing sources under the BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics proposed rule.

Table 13-Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics Existing Sourcesa (2011 dollars)

Industry

Cost (million) Emissions reductions (tpy)

Capital Annual HF HCl Cl2

Non-Hg 

HAP 

metalsb Hg PM PM2.5 SO2

BSCP $55.9 $19.0 410 24.0 2.09 3.79 0.0590 359 172 255

Clay 

Ceramics

$0.102 $0.0458 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 proposed 

BSCP rule are expected to total $55.9 million and $19.0 million, 

respectively (2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions 

reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP rule are expected to 

total 440 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide 

costs and emissions reductions of the proposed BSCP rule is 

presented in the technical memoranda titled “Development of Cost 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 224 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP NESHAP” and

“Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the BSCP

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 proposed Clay 

Ceramics rule, so no emission control costs or emissions 

reductions are expected for these sources. However, these 

facilities will incur monitoring and testing costs to 

demonstrate compliance with the proposed Clay Ceramics rule. 

These costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled

“Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Clay 

Ceramics NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.

There are no major sources producing ceramic 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 rule, which means that no costs or emissions reductions 

are expected for tile affected sources under the proposed Clay 

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

Review***

Page 225 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

Table 14 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts 

for existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed 

rule.

Table 14—Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics 

Existing Sourcesa

Control option

Secondary air emissions (tpy)

Energy 

impacts 

(MMBtu/yr)

Solid 

waste 

impacts 

PM PM2.5 CO NOX SO2 (tpy)

BSCP 1.93 0.646 3.60 28.0 81.7 268,000 8,630

Clay Ceramics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

a PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in 

diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million 

British thermal units per year.

The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the 

BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule includes 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 proposed 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).
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 226 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

Under the proposed BSCP rule, the nationwide secondary 

emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 are expected to total 115 tpy, with 

energy impacts of 268,000 million British thermal units per year

(MMBtu/yr) and solid waste impacts of 8,630 tpy. The methodology 

used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of the 

proposed BSCP rule is presented in the technical memorandum 

“Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP

NESHAP” in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that 

all sanitaryware tile emission points will meet the MACT floor 

emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics rule, so there are 

no secondary impacts expected for these sources. There are no 

major sources producing ceramic 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 rule, which means that no secondary impacts are 

expected for ceramic tile affected sources under the proposed 

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

Review***

Page 227 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

C. What are the economic impacts?

For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average 

national brick price under the proposed standards increases by 

1.4 percent or $3.29 per 1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE)

(2011 dollars), while overall domestic production falls by 1.1

percent or 38 million bricks per year. Under the proposed 

standards, the EPA estimated that one to two 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 rule will not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA 

initiated a SBAR Panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).

For clay ceramics manufacturing, one sanitaryware company 

owns major sources and will incur costs. That affected company 

is not a small business. The compliance costs are less than 

0.001 percent of sales for the affected company. Hence, the 

economic impact for compliance is minimal. Because no small 

firms face significant control costs, there is no significant 

impact on small entities. Thus, the proposed Clay Ceramics 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 228 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 rule, “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick 

and Structural Clay Products NESHAP,” which is available in 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the social costs and benefits of the proposed rule?

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. 

SO2 and NOX are precursors to PM2.5 (particulate matter with 

particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and 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 

emission reductions of SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5 because of 

methodological limitations associated with quantifying and 

monetizing HAP benefits. We estimate the monetized co-benefits 

of the proposed amendments of the BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52 

million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 229 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-

percent discount rate. 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.66 A 

summary of the emission reduction and monetized co-benefits 

estimates for this BSCP rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 

7 percent is in Table 15 of this preamble.

Table 15-Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Brick and 

Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP for 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

170 45 to 100 41 to 92

PM2.5 precursors

SO2 173 7 to 16 6 to 14

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 

 66 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 230 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

allow differentiation of effects estimates by particle type.

These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized 

human health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from 

controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet 

this rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to 

conduct air quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a 

“benefit-per-ton” approach to estimate the benefits of this 

rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this 

approach uses a model to convert emissions of PM2.5 precursors 

into changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another model to 

estimate the changes in human health associated with that change 

in air quality, which are then divided by the emissions in 

specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton estimates were derived 

using the approach published in Fann et al. (2012),67 but they 

have since been updated to reflect the studies and population 

data in the 2012 PM National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) RIA.68 Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-per-ton 

 67 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. 68 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 231 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

estimates from the “Non-EGU Point other” category by the 

corresponding emission reductions.69 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 in Docket ID 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

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 

 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>. 69 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 232 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 study70

and the extended Six Cities cohort study.71 In the RIA for this 

rule, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, 

we also include benefits estimates derived from expert judgments 

(Roman et al., 2008) as a characterization of uncertainty 

regarding the PM2.5-mortality relationship.

Considering a substantial body of published scientific 

literature, reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and

clinical studies, the EPA’s Integrated Science Assessment for 

Particulate Matter72 documents the association between elevated 

 70 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. 71 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. 72 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 233 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

PM2.5 concentrations and adverse health effects, including 

increased premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice 

reviewed by the EPA’s independent Science Advisory Board, 

concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that 

a no-threshold model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality 

concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in this 

analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for 

fine particles is without a threshold.

In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the

risks we estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that 

coincide with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the 

epidemiological studies that are used to estimate the benefits. 

Likewise, we are less confident in the risk we estimate from 

simulated PM2.5 concentrations that fall below the bulk of the 

observed data in these studies. Concentration benchmark analyses 

(e.g., lowest measured level (LML) or one standard deviation 

below the mean of the air quality data in the study) allow 

readers to determine the portion of population exposed to annual 

mean PM2.5 levels at or above different concentrations, which 

provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the 

estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There are uncertainties 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 234 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 or 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 235 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule 

because these results are not consistent with results from rules 

that had 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 

RIA73 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 

 73 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.
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 236 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 proposed amendments.

The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are 

anticipated to have minor secondary disbenefits, including an 

increase of 28 tons of NOX, less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO

and 82 tons of SO2 each year. Given the insignificant increase,

only secondary effects of PM and SO2 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: Proposed 

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 237 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

We request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule for 

BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, including 

any alternate approaches that the EPA is considering (see 

section IV.Q of this preamble for further discussion on these 

approaches).

During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendation of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the requirements of the proposed 

BSCP rule. (Note: We did not convene a SBAR Panel for the 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule because none of the major source 

facilities subject to the proposed Clay Ceramics rule are owned 

by a small entity.) As part of the SBAR Panel process, we 

conducted outreach with representatives from various small 

entities that would be affected by the proposed BSCP rule. We 

met with these small entity representatives (SERs) to discuss 

the potential rulemaking approaches and potential options to 

decrease the impact of the BSCP rulemaking on their 

industries/sectors. We distributed outreach materials to the 

SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 238 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, preliminary cost and 

economic impacts and possible rulemaking alternatives. We met 

with SERs from the BSCP industry that will be impacted directly 

by the proposed BSCP rule to discuss the outreach materials and 

receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in 

the outreach packet. The Panel received written comments from 

the SERs following the meeting in response to discussions at the 

meeting and the questions posed to the SERs by the agency. The 

SERs were specifically asked to provide comment on regulatory 

alternatives that could help to minimize the BSCP rule’s impact 

on small businesses. A copy of the final Panel report is 

available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 

Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review

Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is an “economically 

significant regulatory action” because it is likely to have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.”

Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to OMB for review 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 239 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the dockets for this action.

In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential

costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is 

contained in “Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and 

Structural Clay Products NESHAP.” A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for the proposed 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 $21 million (2011 dollars)

under the proposed BSCP rule, including costs of emission 

controls, testing and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and 

reporting costs for facilities that have testing and monitoring. 

Total annualized costs for the alternate approach are estimated

to be $31 million (2011 dollars). The EPA gathered information 

on firm sales and overall industry profitability for firms 

owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA estimated that one to 

two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of 

closure under the proposed standards. Under the alternate 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 240 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

approach, the EPA estimated that two to six BSCP manufacturing 

facilities are at significant risk of closure.

The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the 

proposed rule, as described in section VII 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 (as a co-benefit to reducing non-Hg 

metal HAPs) 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 close to 450 tons of HAP each 

year for the proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 

tons of HAP each year through the alternate standards, as well 

as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment due to PM 

emissions. In addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors 

such as SO2, this rule would reduce several non-Hg HAP metals 

emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 

chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium) each 

year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co-benefits to be 

$52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3 percent

discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 241 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

a 7 percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the 

proposed standards.

Based on the EPA’s examination of costs and benefits of the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the 

proposed BSCP rule will exceed the costs.

The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts 

associated with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. Only two 

firms are estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed 

Clay Ceramics rule and they only incur costs associated with 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total 

annualized costs are only $55,900 (2011 dollars) and both firms’ 

estimated costs of complying with the proposed Clay Ceramics 

rule are less than 0.001 percent of their sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the BSCP and 

Clay Ceramics proposed rule have been submitted for approval to 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The information collection request (ICR) document prepared 

by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The ICR document prepared by the EPA 

for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 242 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

EPA ICR number 2510.01. The information requirements are based 

on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 

NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are 

mandatory for all operators subject to national 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 

proposed 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.

There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major 

sources of HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are 

projected to become synthetic area sources by promulgation 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 243 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 67 

facilities are expected to be subject to the proposed BSCP rule. 

For these 67 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 15,063 labor hours per year, at a cost of 

$796,255/yr. No capital costs associated with monitoring, 

testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred 

during this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs 

are estimated to be $983/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 103 hours per year, at 

a total labor cost of $5,329 per year. (All costs are in 2011 

dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

There are four clay ceramics facilities that are currently 

major sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics 

rule that we are proposing. For these four 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 899 

labor hours per year at a cost of $47,538/yr. As with the BSCP 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 244 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

standards, no capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, 

recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during 

this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs are 

estimated to be $59/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 6.1 hours per year, at 

a total labor cost of $318 per year. (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 report, records of compliance data and 

malfunctions) does not occur until the fourth year following 

promulgation.

For the proposed BSCP rule, we estimate an average annual 

recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per 

year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also 

estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual 

operating and maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over this period, 

for a total annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 245 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is 

estimated to be 3,953 hours per year, at a total labor cost of 

$207,946 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)

For the proposed Clay Ceramics rule, we estimate an average 

annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1,907 labor hours 

per year, at a cost of $100,802/yr, for years 4 through 6. We 

also estimate annualized capital costs of $33,176/yr and annual 

operating and maintenance costs of $24,144/yr over this period, 

for a total annualized cost of $57,320/yr. The average annual 

burden for the federal government for years 4 through 6 is 

estimated to be 239 hours per year, at a total labor cost of 

$12,552 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.

To comment on the agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested 

methods for minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for each rule, which includes this 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 246 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 (for the BSCP 

Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 

(for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any 

comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for where 

to submit comments to the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days

after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], a 

comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule 

subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 247 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 

entities include small businesses, small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small 

business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the 

proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP 

manufacturing facilities. Affected parent companies fall under 

the Clay Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 

327120) industry and the SBA (2013) defines a small business in 

this industry as a firm with fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 

parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 parent 

companies that are small businesses. Small entities affected by 

the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small businesses that own 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 248 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Affected parent 

companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay 

Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) 

industry and affected parent companies of sanitaryware 

facilities fall under the Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing 

Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 327110) industry. However, we have 

determined that no small entities would be subject to the clay 

ceramics proposed standards.

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 

IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed BSCP rule on small 

entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce 

that impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of the RIA and is

available for review in the docket for the proposed BSCP rule

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) and is summarized below.

1. Need for the Rule

The EPA is required under section 112(d) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), as amended, 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, 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 249 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 proposed.

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

Review***

Page 250 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

environmental impacts when doing so. This rule is being proposed 

to comply with CAA section 112(d).

3. Affected Small Entities

Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, there are 36 

parent companies that are small businesses. The EPA computed the 

ratio of estimated compliance costs to company sales (cost-tosales ratio) to measure the magnitude of potential impacts on 

small companies. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated 

that one to two small brick manufacturing facilities are at 

significant risk of closure. Under the alternate approach, two 

to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at significant 

risk of closure.

4. 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 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 251 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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. Related Federal Rules 

The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules 

for this source category. 

6. Significant Alternatives

The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where 

possible to minimize the burden on all affected entities, 

including small entities. As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, as amended by Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also conducted outreach to small 

entities and convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations of representatives of the small entities that 

potentially would be subject to the proposed BSCP rule’s 

requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick manufacturing 

participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an outreach 

meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the 

materials that the SERs received for the pre-Panel outreach, the 

SERs were provided with background information to help them 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 252 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

prepare for the teleconference and prepare their comments on the 

proposed rulemaking.

Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel 

evaluated the assembled materials and small-entity comments on 

issues related to elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel 

report is included in the docket for the proposed BSCP rule

(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291).

The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance 

flexibility for small businesses complying with the proposed 

BSCP rule. The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the 

extent feasible, as described below:

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices 

for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work 

practice standards for Hg and other metals. The discussion 

of work practices for Hg and other metals should clearly 

identify any areas where the agency believes that the data 

do not support work practices to allow for meaningful 

comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with 

sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as 

an alternative in the final BSCP rule.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 253 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

dioxin/furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits 

for Hg and for non-Hg metals, the EPA is specifically 

requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work 

practice standards for non-Hg metals and for Hg are 

appropriate.

• The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a 

health-based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless 

the EPA determines it lacks sufficient information to 

propose a numerical health-based limit.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission 

limit for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate 

subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the 

financial impact and that the EPA should take comment and 

solicit data on subcategorization based on raw materials, 

fuels and other factors.

Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if 

subcategories of sources were supported, including 

subcategories by kiln size. As a result, the EPA is 

proposing emission limits for Hg in two subcategories based 

on kiln size (large, small). However, although the EPA has 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 254 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA 

determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion 

for all pollutants, including total non-Hg HAP metals. 

Instead, the EPA is proposing a choice of emission limits 

for PM or total non-Hg metals for all tunnel kilns. The 

ability to comply with the equivalent lb/hr total non-Hg

HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small 

tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in 

the PM emissions.

• The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request 

information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust 

dryers would affect emissions and control costs.

Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on 

whether the EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired 

with sawdust (with or without a sawdust dryer).

• The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice 

standards for startup and shutdown.

Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards 

for periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.

• The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on 

12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 255 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

establish that the data available to the agency represent 

the best-performing sources consistent with section 112 of 

the CAA and relevant case law.

Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for 

total non-Hg metals) showed that kilns controlled with a 

FF-based APCD (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better

performers and at least 12 percent of the kilns in the 

industry are controlled with a FF-based APCD. Therefore, 

the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns 

in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a 

FF-based APCD). However, the EPA was unable to establish 

that the data available to the agency represented the bestperforming sources for Hg control. Therefore, the MACT 

limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of sources 

for which we had test data.

We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its 

impacts on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless 

otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 256 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

regulatory actions on State, local and tribal governments and 

the private sector. This action does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the

private sector in any 1 year. This action is not expected to 

impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide annual 

cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million

per year for the proposed BSCP rule and $54,100 per year for the 

proposed Clay Ceramics rule (2011 dollars). Thus, this action is

not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the 

UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. It contains no requirements that apply to such 

governments, nor does it impose obligations upon them.

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

Review***

Page 257 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 

13132. None of the facilities subject to this action are owned 

or operated by state governments and nothing in this proposal 

will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action

from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It 

will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 

on the relationship between the federal government and Indian 

tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 

facilities and not tribal governments. Although Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA specifically 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 258 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 

officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to 

influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology 

performance. Nevertheless, this action will result in reductions 

in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other 

metals, which will provide some increased protection of health 

for people of all ages including children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined 

in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because 

it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. This action will not 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 259 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

adversely directly affect productivity, competition or prices in 

the energy sector.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 

U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The 

EPA proposes to use the following four VCS 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. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), “Standard Test 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 260 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 (%) 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 is not acceptable for that compound and the test must 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 261 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

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 EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed 

rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify 

potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards 

should be used in one or both of these regulations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. 

Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental 

justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities 
***E.O. 12866 Review-Draft-Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During 

Review***

Page 262 of 438

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States.

The EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous 

populations because they increase 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, 

low income or indigenous populations. The proposed rule 

establishes national standards that will result in reductions in 

emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans and Hg and other metals 

to which all affected populations are exposed. Thus the proposed 

rule is projected to have positive, not adverse, impacts on 

human health and the environment.
***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 438

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.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the 

Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 63 

as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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 (f)(1);

b. Revising paragraph (g)(74);

c. Revising paragraph (g)(84);

d. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and

e. Revising paragraph (l)(2).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 

[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, 

IBR approved for §§63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 

63.865(b), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.3166(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.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(74) 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 table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, 

tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart 

UUUUU.

* * * * *

(84) 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, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to 

subpart KKKKK, table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart 

UUUUU, and appendix A to subpart UUUUU.

* * * * *
(95) 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 

table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and table 4 to subpart KKKKK.

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office Of Air Quality Planning And

Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, 

September 1997, IBR approved for §§63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 

63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).

3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as 

follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?
63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8490 What records must I keep?

63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits

Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits

Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards

Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for 

Performance Tests

Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

Table 8 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, 

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.

(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 

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 (3) 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.
(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and you met the applicability criteria at 

the time you began construction.

(e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the 

criteria as defined in §63.2.

(f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 

reconstructed.

§63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

(a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] but before 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 
Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the applicable emission limitations and work 

practice standards in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an 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, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction commenced after [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 

source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8480 

according to the schedule in §63.8480 and in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before 

you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

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

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.
(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

periodic kilns, you must comply with the requirements listed in 

Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for dioxins/furans 

for affected tunnel kilns, you must comply with the requirements 

listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(d) To meet the work practice standards for affected tunnel 

kilns during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

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 of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 

pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 
whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8395 

and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems (CMS) 

(e.g., continuous parameter monitoring systems) have been 

installed and verified and any applicable operating limits have 

been set, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and 

maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.

(c) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must prepare 

and implement a written operation, maintenance, and monitoring 

(OM&M) plan according to the requirements in §63.8425.

(d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject 

to the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and 

must perform routine maintenance on the control device for that 

kiln, you may bypass the kiln control device and continue 

operating the kiln upon approval by the Administrator provided 

you satisfy the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through 

(5) of this section.
(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. 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, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible 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 

exemption, 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.

(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 8 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 permitting authority 

upon request.

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

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.

(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8405. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 
inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).

(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(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.

(13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take 

the kiln control device out of service for routine maintenance, 

as specified in §63.8420(d), the procedures specified in 

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

(i) Procedures for minimizing HAP emissions from the kiln 

during periods of routine maintenance of the kiln control device 

when the kiln is operating and the control device is offline.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the kiln control device when the kiln 

is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).
(2) After completing the performance tests to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance 

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8395 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a 

performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 

permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.
(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.

§63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.

(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. 

The owner or operator 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, the owner 

or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of 

performance tests.

(e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for 

each performance test required in this section, as specified in 

§63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour.

(f) You must use the data gathered during the performance 

test and the equations in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section to determine compliance with the emission limitations.

(1) To determine compliance with the production-based 

particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions 

per unit of production for each test run using Equation 1:

P

ER MP = PER 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
































 +



 



















 = +

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 chlorine, 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
(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

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

Field Code Changed
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
( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

2

2

max

Cl

HCl

iCl

HF

HCl

iHCl iHF

i

RfC

RfC MP

RfC

RfC MP MP

HCl - eq P

( ) ( ) ( ) 































+















+

=

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 

Field Code Changed
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.

(1) Submit a request for approval of alternative monitoring 

procedures to the Administrator no later than the notification 

of intent to conduct a performance test. The request must 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i)

through (iv) of this section.

(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.
(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

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

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption 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 a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8420(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

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

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

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

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

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.
(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.

(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

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

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(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 

“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.

(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,” (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.

(h) 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(e).

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. A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 

and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with 

an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart, or 

that is using process changes as a means of meeting the emission 

limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance with each emission limit in Table 1 to 
this subpart, and each operating limit established as required 

in §63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified in your 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described 

in §§63.8445(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart 

that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 

subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8485.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8420(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(e) 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) 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 

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 §63.8485.
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) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you 

must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance 

test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is 

scheduled to begin, as required in §63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 5 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status.

(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) 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).

(3) For each 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), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 
close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstrations.

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8420(d), you must submit your request 

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.

§63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 7 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 7 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 June 30 or December 

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.

(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the 

permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

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

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 

statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period.
(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the kiln controlled by 

the control device was operating, including the information 

specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the 

number of hours that the kiln operated while the control device 

was offline.

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8420(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, 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 
exemption 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

+

+ = (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 exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption 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
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.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) 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 and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.

(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.
(e) 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 paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

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 and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(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) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).

(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 

(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 
and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) 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 7 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.

(h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test 
following the procedure specified in either paragraph (h)(1) or 

(h)(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 

website (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. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, 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 website once the XML schema is available), 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: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The same ERT file (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 website at 

the time of the test, you must submit the results of the 

performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address 

listed in §63.13.

§63.8490 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) A copy of each notification and report that you 

submitted to comply with this subpart, including all 

documentation supporting any Initial Notification or 

Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according 

to the requirements in §63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) Records of performance tests as required in 

§63.10(b)(2)(viii).

(3) Records relating to control device maintenance and 

documentation of your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption 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 of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. 

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.
(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.

(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your periodic kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic 

kilns use the same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be 

maintained for each kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to 

use in log sheets.

(ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of 

product fired in each batch, the corresponding time and 

temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 

whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.

(iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage 

of product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of 

whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that 

specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic 

kiln work practice standard 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, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln exhaust 

temperature at the time the first bricks were placed in the 

kiln, and if applicable, logs of the temperature when the kiln 

exhaust stopped bypassing the control device. For periods of 

shutdown, records of the date, time, and duration of each 

shutdown period, logs of the kiln exhaust temperature at the 

time the last bricks were placed in the kiln, and if applicable, 

logs of the temperature when the kiln exhaust began bypassing 

the control device.

(11) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8420(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.
§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 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, 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 (5) 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.

(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.

§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 

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.

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 

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.

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.

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 metal HAP contained in the particulates 

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln.

Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 
same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.

Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 

reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 

tph) of fired product.

Startup means the setting in operation of an affected 

source and starting the production process.

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). If 

a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design capacity 

is considered to be the capacity following modifications.

Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may 

include caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. 

Wet scrubbers may use any of various design mechanisms to 

increase the contact between exhaust gases and the sorbent.
Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work 

practice, operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 

promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

As stated in §63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in 

the following table that applies to you:

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits

For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

1. Collection of all tunnel 

kilns at facility, including 

all process streams.

HF, HCl, and Cl2

emissions must not exceed 

26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent, under the 

health-based standard, as 

determined using 

Equations 2 and 3.

Not applicable.

2. Existing tunnel kiln, 

including all process 

streams.

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 92

mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Non-Hg metals 

emissions must not 

exceed 0.0011 kg/hr 

(0.023 lb/hr) of 

fired product.

3. Existing large tunnel 

kiln (design capacity ≥10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.1 E-05 kilogram 

per megagram (kg/Mg) (2.2 

E-05 pound per ton 

(lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 29 

micrograms per dry 

standard cubic meter 

(μg/dscm) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04

lb/hr).

4. Existing small tunnel 

kiln (design capacity <10 

tph of fired product), 

including all process 

streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2; or
For each... 

You must meet the 

following emission 

limits...

Or you must comply 

with the 

following... 

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

lb/hr).

5. New or reconstructed 

tunnel kiln, including all 

process streams

a. PM emissions must not 

exceed 0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

i. PM emissions must 

not exceed 15

mg/dscm (0.0066

gr/dscf) at 7% O2; 

or

ii. Non-Hg metals 

emissions must not 

exceed 0.0014 kg/hr 

(0.0032 lb/hr) of 

fired product.

6. New or reconstructed 

large tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 

lb/hr).

7. New or reconstructed 

small tunnel kiln, including 

all process streams.

a. Hg emissions must not 

exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product.

i. Hg emissions must 

not exceed 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2.

ii. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 

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
For 

each... You must...

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

c. Use the same grade of limestone from the same source as was 

used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; maintain records of 

the source and grade of limestone; and

d. Maintain no VE from the DLA stack.

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and 

complete corrective actions in accordance with your OM&M plan; 

operate and maintain the fabric filter such that the alarm is not 

engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 

6-month block reporting period; or maintain no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and

b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to 

the APCD at all times for continuous injection systems; maintain 

the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) at or 

above the level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance 

test for continuous injection systems.

3. Tunnel 

kiln 

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/non-Hg HAP metals performance test; 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

c. 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

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.

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

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 product 

produced in the 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. Do not put any bricks into the kiln 

until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 

204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. If your kiln has an APCD, begin venting

the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD 

by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 

reaches 204 °C (400 °F).

4. Existing, new or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln during 

periods of shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once 

the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149 

°C (300 °F); 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 to 149 °C (300 °F).
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 A-1.

Sampling sites must be 

located at the outlet of 

the APCD and prior to 

any releases to the 

atmosphere for all 

affected sources. 

b. Determine 

velocities and 

volumetric flow 

rate.

Method 2 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-1.

You may use Method 2A, 

2C, 2D, or 2F of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-1, 

or Method 2G of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-2, 

as appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 2 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-1.

c. Conduct gas 

molecular weight 

analysis.

Method 3 of 40 

CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2.

You may use Method 3A or 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A-2, as 

appropriate, as an 

alternative to using 

Method 3 of 40 CFR part 

60, appendix A-2. 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 

[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.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

e. Measure HF, 

HCl and Cl2

emissions.

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.

Method 320 of 40 

CFR part 63, 

appendix A.

When using Method 320 of 

40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, 

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.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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 site-specific

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 fired-product 

basis, of the affected 

source for each of the 

three test runs.

4. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DLA.

a. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the average 

pressure drop 

across the DLA.

Data from the 

pressure drop 

measurement 

device during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must continuously 

measure the pressure 

drop across the DLA, 

determine and record the 

block average pressure 

drop values for the 

three test runs, and 

determine and record the 

3-hour block average of 

the recorded pressure 

drop measurements for 

the three test runs. The 

average of the three 

test runs establishes 

your minimum sitespecific pressure drop 

operating limit.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for the 

limestone feeder 

setting.

Data from the 

limestone feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

You must ensure that you 

maintain an adequate 

amount of limestone in 

the limestone hopper, 

storage bin (located at 

the top of the DLA), and 

DLA at all times during 

the performance test. 

You must establish your 

limestone feeder 

setting, on a per ton of 

fired product basis, one 

week prior to the 

performance test and 

maintain the feeder 

setting for the one-week 

period that precedes the 

performance test and 

during the performance 

test.

c. Document the 

source and grade 

of limestone 

used.

Records of 

limestone 

purchase.

5. Tunnel kiln 

equipped with 

a DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for the lime 

feeder setting.

Data from the 

lime feeder 

during the 

HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test.

For continuous lime 

injection systems, you 

must ensure that lime in 

the feed hopper or silo 

and to the APCD is freeflowing 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.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

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.

b. 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.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

c. 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 sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating level. If 

different average wet 

scrubber liquid flow 

rate values are measured 

during the HF/HCl/Cl2

and PM/non-Hg HAP metals 

tests, the highest of 

the average values 

become your sitespecific operating 

limit.

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.
For each... You must... Using...

According to the 

following 

requirements... 

8. 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

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 40 CFR part 63, appendix A or its 

alternative, ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 

2010) (incorporated by reference, see 

§63.14); and

ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent 

emissions for each kiln using Equation 

2 to this subpart; and

iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values 

for all kilns at the facility using 

Equation 3 to this subpart; and

iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent 

does not exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr).
For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

2. Existing tunnel 

kiln, including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.082 kg/Mg 

(0.16 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 

92 mg/dscm 

(0.040 gr/dscf) 

at 7% 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 0.082 kg/Mg (0.16 lb/ton) 

of fired product or 92 mg/dscm (0.040

gr/dscf) at 7% 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 0.088 kg/Mg 

(0.18 lb/ton) of fired product or 97 

mg/dscm (0.043 gr/dscf) at 7% O2.

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/hr 

(0.023 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 0.011 kg/hr (0.023 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 0.0114 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr).

3. Existing large 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity ≥10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.2 E-04

kg/hr (2.7 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 1.1 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E-04 kg/hr 

(2.7 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 1.1 E-05

kg/Mg (2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 29 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 

E-04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).
For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

4. Existing small 

tunnel kiln (design 

capacity <10 tph of 

fired product), 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

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 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 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 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 

E-04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).

5. New or 

reconstructed 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.011 kg/Mg 

(0.022 lb/ton) 

of fired product 

or 15 mg/dscm at 

7% 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 0.011 kg/Mg (0.022 lb/ton) of 

fired product or 15 mg/dscm at 7% 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 0.011 kg/Mg

(0.022 lb/ton) of fired product or 15

mg/dscm at 7% O2.

b. Non-Hg HAP 

metals emissions 

must not exceed 

0.0014 kg/hr 

(0.0032 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 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032

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 0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 lb/hr).
For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

6. New or 

reconstructed large 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 1.1 E-04

kg/hr (2.4 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 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 

13 μg/dscm at 7% 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 Hg 

emissions did not exceed 1.0 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 13 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 

E-04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).

7. New or 

reconstructed small 

tunnel kiln, 

including all 

process streams.

a. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 

lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 

μg/dscm at 7% O2

or 5.0 E-04 

kg/hr (0.0011 

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 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 

70 μg/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04 kg/hr 

(0.0011 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 9.9 E-05 

kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product or 70 μg/dscm at 7% O2.

a. Minimize HAP 

emissions.

i. Develop a designed firing time and 

temperature cycle for each product 

produced in the 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
For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial 

compliance if...

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.

9. 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

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; 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
For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

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

iv. Using the same grade of limestone from the 

same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2

performance test; maintaining records of the 

source and type of limestone; and

v. Performing VE observations of the DLA stack 

at the frequency specified in §63.8470(e) using 

Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

maintaining no VE from the DLA stack.

2. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with a 

DIFF or 

DLS/FF.

a. Each 

emission limit 

in Table 1 to 

this subpart 

and each 

operating limit 

in Item 2 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for 

tunnel kilns 

equipped with 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection system, 

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
For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

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.

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 drop data 

according to §63.8450(a); reducing the scrubber 

pressure drop data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8450(a); maintaining the 

average scrubber pressure drop for each 3-hour 

block period at or above the average pressure 

drop established during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals

performance test; and

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

iii. 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

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.
For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

4. Tunnel 

kiln 

equipped 

with an 

ACI 

system.

Each emission 

limit in Table 

1 to this 

subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 4 

of Table 2 to 

this subpart 

for tunnel 

kilns equipped 

with ACI 

system.

Collecting the carbon flow rate data according 

to §63.8450(a); reducing the carbon flow rate 

data to 3-hour block averages according to 

§63.8450(a); maintaining the average carbon flow 

rate for each 3-hour block period at or above 

the average carbon flow rate established during 

the Hg performance test.

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 product produced in the 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 airto-fuel ratios, and controls that regulate 

firing cycles; and

iv. Developing and maintaining records for each 

periodic kiln, as specified in §63.8490.
For 

each...

For the 

following... You must demonstrate continuous compliance by...

7. Tunnel 

kiln

a. Minimize 

dioxin/furan 

emissions

i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and 

associated combustion controls (as applicable) 

and tuning the specific burner type to optimize 

combustion no later than 36 calendar months 

after the previous tune-up; and

ii. Maintaining records of burner tune-ups used 

to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan 

work practice standard; and

iii. Submitting a report of most recent tune-up 

conducted with compliance report.

As stated in §63.8485, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 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-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a statement 

that there were no periods during which 

the CMS was out-of-control during the 

reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8485(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(d) or (e). 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(e).

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 8 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.

§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.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§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 

§63.8420(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.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§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.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance(QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test 

plan approval 

procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for 

testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for 

testing facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests 

during SSM; not a 

violation to exceed 

standard during SSM.

No, §63.8445 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA 

test methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test 

runs of at least 1 

hour each; compliance 

is based on arithmetic 

mean of three runs; 

conditions when data 

from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can 

grant approval to use 

an alternative test 

method.

Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data 

in performance test 

report; must submit 

performance test data 

60 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.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability 

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring 

requirements in 

subpart.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for 

flares in §63.11 

apply.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct 

monitoring according 

to standard unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on 

monitoring systems.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air 

pollution control 

practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with 

operation and 

maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative 

emission and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §63.8450 

specifies 

requirements.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§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) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.

§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 days prior.

Yes.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§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.
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 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, §§63.8425 

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.
Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart JJJJJ

§63.10(d)(5) SSM

Reports.

Contents and 

submission.

No. See 

§63.8485(f) 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:

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?

63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, 

and monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 

continuous compliance?

63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?

63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

63.8640 What records must I keep?

63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

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--Requirements for Reports

Table 9 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 

sanitaryware shapes; and dry and fire the ceramic products. 

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

(b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary 

source or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area 

under common control that emits or has the potential to emit any 

single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per 

year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 

tons) or more per year.

§63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or 

reconstructed affected source at a clay ceramics manufacturing 

facility.

(b) Each existing, new, or reconstructed ceramic tile 

roller kiln, sanitaryware tunnel kiln, sanitaryware shuttle 

kiln, ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying, sanitaryware 

glaze spray booth, ceramic tile spray dryer, and floor tile 

press dryer is an affected source.

(c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this 

subpart are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 

section.

(1) Kilns that are used exclusively for refiring.
(2) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 

previously fired products.

(3) Glaze spray operations that use wet glazes containing 

less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry basis).

(4) Raw material processing and handling.

(5) Wall tile press dryers.

(6) Sanitaryware ware dryers.

(d) A source is a new affected source if construction of 

the affected source began after [INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you 

must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and 

(2) of this section.

(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] but before 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 
Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no later than [THE DATE 60 

DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER].

(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after 

[THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], then you must comply with the 

applicable emission limitations and work practice standards in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart upon initial startup of your 

affected source.

(b) If you have an existing affected source, you must 

comply with the emission limitations and work practice standards 

for existing sources in Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart no 

later than [THE DATE 3 YEARS AND 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) If you have an 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, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for 

which construction or reconstruction was commenced after [INSERT 

DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]) that increases its 

emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major 
source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 

initial startup of your affected source as a major source.

(e) You must meet the notification requirements in §63.8630 

according to the schedule in §63.8630 and in 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before 

you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this 

subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

§63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards 

must I meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this 

subpart that applies to you.

(c) You must meet each work practice standard in Table 3 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

§63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission 

limitations and work practice standards?

(a) To meet the emission limitations in Tables 1 and 2 to 

this subpart, you must use one or more of the options listed in 

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

(1) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 

collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 

demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the emission 
limits in Table 1 to this subpart, and that the capture and 

collection system and APCD meet the applicable operating limits 

in Table 2 to this subpart.

(2) Process changes. Use low-HAP raw materials or implement 

manufacturing process changes and demonstrate that the resulting 

emissions or emissions reductions meet the emission limits in 

Table 1 to this subpart.

(b) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sanitaryware shuttle kilns, you must comply with the 

requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

(c) To meet the work practice standards for affected 

sources during periods of startup and shutdown, you must comply 

with the requirements listed in Table 3 to this subpart.

General Compliance Requirements

§63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with 

this subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 

(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, 

except during periods of routine control device maintenance as 

specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(b) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, 

you must operate and maintain any affected source, including 

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring 

equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The 

general duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make 

any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by 

the applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of 

whether a source is operating in compliance with operation and

maintenance requirements will be based on information available 

to the Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 

procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and 

inspection of the source. During the period between the 

compliance date specified for your affected source in §63.8545 

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 upon 

approval by the Administrator provided you satisfy the 

conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this 

section.

(1) You must request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption from the Administrator. 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, describe how you plan to minimize 

emissions to the greatest extent possible 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.

(3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 

exemption, 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.

(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 permitting 

authority upon request.

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

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
(1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of 

monitoring device that will be used, and the operating 

parameters that will be monitored.

(2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that 

the parameter values will be determined and recorded.

(3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 

compliance with the emission limitations in §63.8555. The limits 

must be based on values of the monitored parameters recorded 

during performance tests.

(4) Procedures for the proper operation and routine and 

long-term maintenance of each APCD, including a maintenance and 

inspection schedule that is consistent with the manufacturer’s 

recommendations.

(5) Procedures for installing the CMS sampling probe or 

other interface at a measurement location relative to each 

affected process unit such that the measurement is 

representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or 

downstream of the last APCD).

(6) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 

interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal 

analyzer, and the data collection and reduction system.

(7) Continuous monitoring system performance evaluation 

procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(8) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of 

monitoring equipment consistent with the requirements in 

§§63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).

(9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance 

procedures consistent with the requirements in §63.8(d).

(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.

(ii) Procedures for minimizing the duration of any period 

of routine maintenance on the source control device when the 

affected source is operating and the control device is offline.

(c) Changes to the operating limits in your OM&M plan 

require a new performance test. If you are revising an operating 

limit parameter value, you must meet the requirements in 

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

(1) Submit a notification of performance test to the 

Administrator as specified in §63.7(b).

(2) After completing the performance test to demonstrate 

that compliance with the emission limits can be achieved at the 

revised operating limit parameter value, you must submit the 

performance test results and the revised operating limits as 

part of the Notification of Compliance Status required under 

§63.9(h).

(d) If you are revising the inspection and maintenance 

procedures in your OM&M plan, you do not need to conduct a new 

performance test.
Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

§63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?

For each affected source that is subject to the emission 

limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct 

performance tests within 180 calendar days after the compliance 

date that is specified for your source in §63.8545 and according 

to the provisions in §63.7(a)(2).

§63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

(a) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

conduct a performance test before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 

operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 

performance test.

(b) You must conduct a performance test when you want to 

change the parameter value for any operating limit specified in 

your OM&M plan.

§63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish 

operating limits?

(a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to 

this subpart that applies to you.

(b) Before conducting the performance test, you must 

install and calibrate all monitoring equipment.
(c) Each performance test must be conducted according to 

the requirements in §63.7 and under the specific conditions in 

Table 4 to this subpart.

(d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such 

conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or 

operator based on representative performance of the affected 

source for the period being tested. Representative conditions 

exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator 

may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction.

The owner or operator 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, the owner 

or operator 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:

P

ER MP = PER 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 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 glaze sprayed for each 

test run using Equation 2:

G

ER MG = GER MG = (Eq. 2)

Where:

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of 

PM per megagram (ton) of glaze sprayed

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 glaze sprayed per hour.

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
(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:

∑( ) =

= ×

n

i

TEQ Ci TEFi

1

∑( ) =

= ×

n

i

TEQ Ci TEFi

1

(Eq. 3)

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, nanograms per dry standard 

cubic meter

Ci = concentration of dioxin or furan congener i, nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter

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

(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)

Where:

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
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.

(1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your tunnel 

or roller kiln, you must calculate the maximum potential HClField Code Changed
equivalent 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 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

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)

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, 

Field Code Changed

Field Code Changed
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

( ) ( ) 



 





















+

=

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 fired 

product

MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, kilograms 

(pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product

RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms per 

cubic meter

Field Code Changed
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 

contain the information specified in paragraphs (h)(1)(i) 

through (iv) of this section.
(i) A description of the alternative APCD or process 

changes.

(ii) The type of monitoring device or procedure that will 

be used.

(iii) The operating parameters that will be monitored.

(iv) The frequency that the operating parameter values will 

be determined and recorded to establish continuous compliance 

with the operating limits.

(2) Establish site-specific operating limits during the 

performance test based on the information included in the 

approved alternative monitoring procedures request and, as 

applicable, as specified in Table 4 to this subpart.

§63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 

maintenance requirements?

(a) You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 

according to your OM&M plan and the requirements in paragraphs 

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

(1) Conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS according 

to your OM&M plan.

(2) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of 

operation for each successive 15-minute period. To have a valid 

hour of data, you must have at least three of four equally 

spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if you collect more 

than four data values per hour) for that hour (not including 
startup, shutdown, malfunction, out-of-control periods, or 

periods of routine control device maintenance covered by a 

routine control device maintenance exemption 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 a routine control device maintenance exemption as 

specified in §63.8570(d)).

(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 

validation check.

(5) At all times, maintain the monitoring equipment 

including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for 

routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.

(b) For each liquid flow measurement device, you must meet 

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

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

(1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 

representative flowrate.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flowrate.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor 

calibration check.

(c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 

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

(c)(1) through (7) of this section.

(1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a 

position that provides a representative measurement of the 

pressure.

(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, 

and internal and external corrosion.

(3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 

0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement 

sensitivity of 1 percent of the pressure range.

(4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not 

plugged.

(5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly 

and transducer calibration monthly.

(6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer’s 

specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration 

checks or install a new pressure sensor.
(7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, 

all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical 

connections for leakage.

(d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the 

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

(d)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 

representative measurement of pH.

(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative 

of the fluid to be measured.

(3) Check the pH meter’s calibration on at least two points 

every 8 hours of process operation.

(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 

“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.

(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.

(11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, 

and validation check.

(f) For each lime, chemical, or carbon feed rate 

measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative feed rate measurement.

(2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
(g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet 

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

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

(1) Locate the measurement device in a position that 

provides a representative temperature.

(2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 

1 percent of the temperature being measured.

(3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.

(h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring 

procedures must meet the requirements in §§63.8595(h) and 

63.8(f).

§63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each 

emission limitation and work practice standard that applies to 

you according to Table 6 to this subpart.

(b) You must establish each 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, 

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. A monitoring malfunction is any 

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 

monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring failures 

that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 

operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the valid data 

collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. Any 

averaging period for which you do not have valid monitoring data 
and such data are required constitutes a deviation from the 

monitoring requirements.

§63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 

emission limitations and work practice standards?

(a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each 

emission limit, operating limit, and work practice standard in 

Tables 1, 2, and 3 to this subpart that applies to you according 

to the methods specified in Table 7 to this subpart.

(b) For each affected source that is subject to the 

emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is 

equipped with an APCD that is not addressed in Table 2 to this 

subpart, or that is using process changes as a means of meeting 

the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limit in 

Table 1 to this subpart, and each operating limit established as 

required in §63.8595(h)(2) according to the methods specified in 

your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as 

described in §§63.8595(h)(1) and 63.8(f).

(c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limit and operating limit in this subpart that 

applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 

malfunction, and routine control device maintenance. These 

instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 

requirements in §63.8635.

(d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 

maintenance covered by an approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption according to §63.8570(d) are not 

violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 

satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the 

approved routine control device maintenance exemption.

(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 

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) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your 

affected source before [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], you must 

submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days 

after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 

FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(c) As specified in §63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new 

or reconstructed affected source or affected source described in 

§63.8540(d) or §63.8540(e) on or after [THE DATE 60 DAYS AFTER 
THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 

than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.

(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you

must submit a written notification of intent to conduct a 

performance test at least 60 calendar days before the 

performance test is scheduled to begin, as required in 

§63.7(b)(1).

(e) If you are required to conduct a performance test or 

other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 

and 6 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 

Compliance Status as specified in §63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section.

(1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a 

performance test conducted according to the requirements in 

Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of 

Compliance Status, including the performance test results, 

before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following 

the completion of the performance test, according to 

§63.10(d)(2).

(2) In addition to the requirements in §63.9(h)(2)(i), you 

must include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of 

this section in your Notification of Compliance Status:
(i) The operating limit parameter values established for 

each affected source with supporting documentation and a 

description of the procedure used to establish the values.

(ii) 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).

(3) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 6 

to this subpart that does not include a performance test (i.e., 

compliance demonstration for the work practice standard), you 

must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the 

close of business on the 30th calendar day following the 

completion of the compliance demonstration.

(f) If you request a routine control device maintenance 

exemption according to §63.8570(d), you must submit your request 

for the exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance 

date.

(g) 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, you must submit 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. The notification must 
include the information specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(5) of this section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Identification of the affected kiln.

(3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent 

fuel, including the date when the natural gas curtailment was 

declared or the natural gas supply interruption began.

(4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.

(5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to 

begin and end.

§63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?

(a) You must submit each report in Table 8 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 8 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 June 30 or December 

31, and lasting at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For 

example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 

semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on 

December 31.
(2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 

semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or 

the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.

(4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 

delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance 

periods ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.

(5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 

regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if 

the permitting authority has established dates for submitting 

semiannual reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent 

compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 

authority has established instead of according to the dates in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.

(c) The compliance report must contain the information in 

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

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official with that 

official’s name, title, and signature, certifying that, based on 

information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 
statements and information in the report are true, accurate, and 

complete.

(3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the 

reporting period.

(4) A description of control device maintenance performed 

while the control device was offline and the affected source 

controlled by the control device was operating, including the 

information specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of 

this section.

(i) The date and time when the control device was shut down 

and restarted.

(ii) Identification of the affected source that was 

operating and the number of hours that the affected source 

operated while the control device was offline.

(iii) A statement of whether or not the control device 

maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 

maintenance exemption developed as specified in §63.8570(d). If 

the control device maintenance was included in your approved 

routine control device maintenance exemption, 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 exemption 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= (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 exemption for the previous semiannual 

compliance period

DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine control 

device maintenance exemption 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

Field Code Changed
(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.

(d) For each deviation from an emission limitation 

(emission limit or operating limit) that occurs at an affected 

source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission 

limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain 

the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 

(d)(1) through (3) 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 and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(2) Information on the number, date, time, duration, and 

cause of deviations (including unknown cause, if applicable), as 

applicable, and the corrective action taken.
(3) The applicable operating limit or work practice 

standard from which you deviated and either the parameter 

monitor reading during the deviation or a description of how you 

deviated from the work practice standard.

(e) 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 paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) 

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 and identification of the sources for which 

there was a deviation.

(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) The date and time that each deviation started and 

stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during routine 

control device maintenance covered in your approved routine 

control device maintenance exemption or during another period, 

and the cause of each deviation (including unknown cause, if 

applicable).
(5) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 

emitted over the emission limit during the deviation, and a 

description of the method used to estimate the emissions.

(6) A description of corrective action taken in response to 

a deviation.

(7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during 

the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the 

total source operating time during that reporting period.

(8) 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.

(9) 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.

(10) A brief description of the process units.

(11) A brief description of the CMS.

(12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.

(13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or 

control equipment since the last reporting period.

(f) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, 

the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this 

section.

(1) The number, duration, and a brief description for each 

type of malfunction which occurred during the reporting period 

and which caused or may have caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded.

(2) A description of actions taken by an owner or operator 

during a malfunction of an affected facility to minimize 

emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including actions 

taken to correct a malfunction.

(g) If you have obtained a title V operating permit 

according to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report 

all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual 

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

CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report 

according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or as part of, 

the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 

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

compliance report includes all required information concerning 

deviations from any emission limitation (including any operating 

limit), then submitting the compliance report will satisfy any 

obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual 

monitoring report. However, submitting a compliance report will 
not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 

deviations from permit requirements to the permitting authority.

(h) 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 (h)(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.

(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each 

performance test (as defined in §63.2) as required by this 

subpart, you must submit the results of the performance test

following the procedures specified in either paragraph (i)(1) or 

(i)(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 
website (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. Instead of 

submitting performance test data in a file format generated 

through the use of the EPA’s ERT, you may submit an alternate 

electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup 

language (XML) schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website, 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 website once the XML schema is available), 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: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. 

The same ERT file (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 website 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 exemption, if you request such an exemption 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 of an operating limit parameter 

value, the date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief 

explanation of the cause of the deviation, actions taken to 

minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b) and the 

corrective action taken to return the affected unit to its 

normal or usual manner of operation, and whether the deviation 

occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction.

Record and retain a list of the affected sources or equipment, 

an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted 

over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 

estimate the emissions.

(3) For each affected source, records of production rates 

on a fired-product weight basis.

(4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 

procedures.

(5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 

APCD.
(6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any 

revisions, with records documenting conformance.

(7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs 

(c)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section to document proper 

operation of your sanitaryware shuttle kiln.

(i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for 

each product produced in 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 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 sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the 

actual tonnage of product fired in the shuttle kiln and an 

indication of whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage 

for that specific kiln.

(8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 

compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware 

shuttle kiln work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this 

subpart.

(9) For periods of startup, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each startup period, logs of the kiln or dryer 
exhaust temperature at the time the first ceramics were placed 

in the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln or dryer exhaust stopped bypassing the control 

device. For periods of shutdown, records of the date, time, and 

duration of each shutdown period, logs of the kiln or dryer 

exhaust temperature at the time the last ceramics were placed in 

the kiln or dryer, and if applicable, logs of the temperature 

when the kiln or dryer exhaust began bypassing the control 

device.

(10) For each malfunction, records of the following 

information:

(i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each 

malfunction of operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment.

(ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction 

to minimize emissions in accordance with §63.8570(b), including 

corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or 

usual manner of operation.

§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 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General 

Provisions in §§63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

§63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the 

U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or 

tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated 

authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that 

agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to 

implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. 

EPA Regional Office to find out if implementation and 

enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your State, local, 

or tribal agency.

(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority 

of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 

section 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, 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 (5) 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 §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.

§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 

sanitaryware shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products.

Glazes are applied to many tile and sanitaryware products.

Deviation means any instance in which an affected source 

subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a 

source:

(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established 

by this subpart including, but not limited to, any emission 

limitation (including any operating limit) or work practice 

standard; or

(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 

implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any 

affected source required to obtain such a permit.
Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum 

of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 

3 of this subpart.

Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent 

into a duct or reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.

Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 

includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or 

other sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric 

filter. These systems typically include recirculation of some of 

the sorbent.

Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating 

limit.

Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering 

a gas stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.

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.
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). 

If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, the design 

capacity is considered to be the capacity following 

modifications.

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 metal HAP contained in the particulates

including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 

cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and 

selenium.

Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption

means a period of time during which the supply of natural gas to 

an affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of 

the facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural 

gas does not constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or 

supply interruption.
Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that 

is under common control, including properties that are separated 

only by a road or other public right-of-way. Common control 

includes properties that are owned, leased, or operated by the 

same entity, parent entity, subsidiary, or any combination 

thereof.

Responsible official means responsible official as defined 

in 40 CFR 70.2.

Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel 

kiln except that the unfired ceramic product travels through the 

kiln in a single layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source 

category, roller kilns are used at ceramic tile manufacturing 

plants.

Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed 

with a removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using 

hydraulic struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay 

ceramics source category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware 

manufacturing plants.

Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a 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.

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.

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 0.090 kilogram per 

megagram (kg/Mg) (0.18 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 4.6 nanograms 

per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7% O2.

3. Existing wall tile 

roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.099 kg/Mg 

(0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.
b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.7 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.16 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

4. Existing firstfire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

5. Existing tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

6. Existing 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

9. Existing floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 44 ng/dscm at 7% 

O2.

10. Existing wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

11. Existing floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E05 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 1.5 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile roller kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg 

(0.27 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5 E-06 kg/Mg (3.1 E06 lb/ton) of fired product.

c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.160.23 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

14. New or 

reconstructed firstfire sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E04 lb/ton) of fired product.
c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.37 ng/dscm 

at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed tile 

glaze line with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions must not exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E04 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware manual 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware spray 

machine glaze 

application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware robot 

glaze application

PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

19. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

20. New or 

reconstructed wall 

tile spray dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed floor 

tile press dryer

Dioxin/furan emissions must not exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 

7% O2.

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 fired product 

basis) at or above the level established during the 

performance test for continuous injection systems.

2. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

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; 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

c. 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

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.

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 operating 

temperature for each 3-hour block period at or above the 

average temperature established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

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); and

c. Maintain the average kiln operating temperature for each 3-

hour block period at or below the average temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan performance test.

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; 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.

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.

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.

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 product 

produced in 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 product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. 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 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 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

startup

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature reaches 204 °C (400 °F); and

ii. 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 204 °C 

(400 °F).

3. Existing, new 

or reconstructed 

kiln or dryer 

during periods of 

shutdown

a. Minimize 

HAP 

emissions.

i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln or 

dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust 

temperature falls to 149 °C (300 °F); 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 to 149 °C 

(300 °F).

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.

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.
ii. Method 320 

of 40 CFR part 

63, appendix A.

When using Method 320 of 

40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A, you must follow the 

analyte spiking 

procedures of section 13 

of Method 320 of 40 CFR 

part 63, appendix A, 

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.

To determine PM, weigh 

the filter and report 

the results as PM 

filterable.

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.
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.

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 site-specific 

process rate operating 

limit(s).

b. Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

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.
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 fired-product 

weight 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 freeflowing 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.

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.
b. 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.

c. 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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific operating 

limit.
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.

9. 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.

10. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission 

limit without 

an ACI 

system.

Establish the 

operating limit 

for kiln 

operating 

temperature.

Data from the 

temperature 

measurement 

device during 

the dioxin/furan 

performance 

test.

You must continuously 

measure the kiln 

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.
11. 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.

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 sitespecific liquid flow 

rate operating limit.

12. 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.
13. 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.

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

2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.3

1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran 0.03

1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran 0.1

1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01

1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran 0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran 0.0003

As stated in §63.8605, you must demonstrate initial 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

For each...

For the 

following...

You have demonstrated initial compliance 

if...

1. Collection 

of all tunnel 

or roller kilns 

at the 

facility.

a. HF, HCl, and 

Cl2 emissions 

must not exceed 

62 kg/hr (140 

lb/hr) HCl 

equivalent.

i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for 

each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-8 or its alternative, 

ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) 

(incorporated by reference, see §63.14); 

or Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix 

A 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 

0.090 kg/Mg 

(0.18 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 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 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 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) 

of fired product.
b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.3 E-04 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of 

fired product; and

ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which Hg emissions did not exceed 

6.3 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 4.6 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 4.6 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

3. Existing 

wall tile 

roller kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 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 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 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 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 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 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 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 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.
c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

4. Existing 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.17 kg/Mg 

(0.33 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 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 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 

0.17 kg/Mg (0.33 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.6 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 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 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 

1.3 E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

5. Existing 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg 

(1.9 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 glaze sprayed; and
ii. You establish and have a record of the 

operating limits listed in Table 2 to this 

subpart over the 3-hour performance test 

during which PM emissions did not exceed 

0.93 kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

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 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; 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 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

6. Existing 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 16 kg/Mg 

(33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 

16 kg/Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

7. Existing 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

6.2 kg/Mg 

(12 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 

(12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

8. Existing 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 4.4 kg/Mg 

(8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 

4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
9. Existing 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 44 

ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 44 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

10. Existing 

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

11. Existing 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

12. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

roller kiln.

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.014 kg/Mg 

(0.027 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 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 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 

0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(3.9 E-05 lb/ton) 

of fired product.

i. The Hg emissions measured using 

Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 

or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02 

(Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by 

reference, see §63.14), over the period of 

the initial performance test, do not 

exceed 1.9 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 

1.9 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 1.5 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

13. New or 

reconstructed 

wall tile 

roller kiln. 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.10 kg/Mg 

(0.20 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 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 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 

0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of fired product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg 

(2.0 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 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 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 

1.0 E-04 kg/Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
14. New or 

reconstructed 

first-fire 

sanitaryware 

tunnel kiln 

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.047 kg/Mg 

(0.095 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 0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 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 

0.047 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.2 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 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 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 

6.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of fired 

product.

c. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.37 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

15. New or 

reconstructed 

tile glaze line 

with glaze 

spraying

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 0.30 kg/Mg 

(0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 

0.30 kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
b. Hg emissions 

must not exceed 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg 

(1.6 E-04 lb/ton) 

of glaze sprayed.

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 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed; 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 

7.9 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of glaze 

sprayed.

16. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

manual glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 1.9 kg/Mg 

(3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 

1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

17. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

spray machine 

glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.6 kg/Mg 

(3.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 glaze sprayed; 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 glaze sprayed.

18. New or 

reconstructed 

sanitaryware 

robot glaze 

application

a. PM emissions 

must not exceed 

1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of 

glaze sprayed.

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 1.1 kg/Mg 

(2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed; 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 

1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.

19. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

spray dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.17

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

20. New or 

reconstructed

wall tile spray 

dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.12 

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

21. New or 

reconstructed 

floor tile 

press dryer

a. Dioxin/furan 

emissions must 

not exceed 0.19

ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 

0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2; 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 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.

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 each product 

produced in 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 product 

that can be fired in the kiln during a 

single firing cycle; and

iv. Develop maintenance procedures for 

each kiln that, at a minimum, specify the 

frequency of inspection and maintenance of 

temperature monitoring devices, controls 

that regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and 

controls that regulate firing cycles.
As stated in §63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous 

compliance with each emission limitation and work practice 

standard that applies to you according to the following table:

Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

For each...

For the 

following...

You must demonstrate continuous 

compliance by...

1. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

equipped with a 

DIFF or DLS/FF.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 1 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with DIFF 

or DLS/FF.

i. If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 

reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the 

DIFF or DLS/FF stack at the frequency 

specified in §63.8620(e) using Method 

22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7; 

and maintaining no VE from the DIFF 

or DLS/FF stack; and 

ii. Verifying that lime is 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.
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 

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; 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. 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

iv. If chemicals are added to the 

scrubber water, collecting the 

scrubber chemical feed rate data 

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.

4. Tunnel or 

roller kiln 

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

Collecting the kiln operating 

temperature data according to 
intending to 

comply with 

dioxin/furan 

emission limit 

without an ACI 

system.

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.

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or below the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

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 kiln operating 

temperature data according to 

§63.8600(a); reducing the kiln 

operating temperature data to 3-hour 

block averages according to 

§63.8600(a); maintaining the average 

kiln operating temperature for each 

3-hour block period at or above the 

average operating temperature 

established during the dioxin/furan 

performance test.

6. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

FF.

Each emission limit 

in Table 1 to this 

subpart and each 

operating limit in 

Item 6 of Table 2 

to this subpart for 

glaze spray 

operations equipped 

with a FF.

If you use a bag leak detection 

system, initiating corrective action 

within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 

system alarm and completing 

corrective actions in accordance with 

your OM&M plan; operating and 

maintaining the fabric filter such 

that the alarm is not engaged for 

more than 5 percent of the total 

operating time in a 6-month block 
reporting period; in calculating this 

operating time fraction, if 

inspection of the fabric filter 

demonstrates that no corrective 

action is required, no alarm time is 

counted; if corrective action is 

required, each alarm is counted as a 

minimum of 1 hour; if you take longer 

than 1 hour to initiate corrective 

action, the alarm time is counted as 

the actual amount of time taken by 

you to initiate corrective action; or 

performing VE observations of the FF 

stack at the frequency specified in 

§63.8620(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A-7; and 

maintaining no VE from the FF stack.

7. Glaze spray 

operation 

equipped with a 

WS.

a. Each emission 

limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart and 

each operating 

limit in Item 7 of 

Table 2 to this 

subpart for kilns 

equipped with WS.

i. Collecting the scrubber pressure 

drop data according to §63.8600(a);

reducing the scrubber pressure drop 

data to 3-hour block averages 

according to §63.8600(a); maintaining 

the average scrubber pressure drop 

for each 3-hour block period at or 

above the average pressure drop 

established during the PM performance 

test; 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.

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.

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.

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 product 

produced in the shuttle kiln; and

v. 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.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 shuttle kiln, as 

specified in §63.8640.

As stated in §63.8635, you must submit each report that 

applies to you according to the following table:

Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports

You must 

submit... The report must contain...

You must submit 

the report...

1. A compliance 

report.

a. If there are no deviations from any 

emission limitations or work practice 

standards that apply to you, a 

statement that there were no deviations 

from the emission limitations or work 

practice standards during the reporting 

period. If there were no periods during 

which the CMS was out-of-control as 

specified in your OM&M plan, a 

statement that there were no periods 

during which the CMS was out-of-control 

during the reporting period.

Semiannually 

according to the 

requirements in 

§63.8635(b).

b. If you have a deviation from any 

emission limitation (emission limit, 

operating limit) during the reporting 

period, the report must contain the 

information in §63.8635(d) or (e). 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(e).

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 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 

Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

Citation Subject Brief Description

Applies to 

Subpart KKKKK

§63.1 Applicability. Initial applicability 

determination; 

applicability after 

standard established; 

permit requirements; 

extensions, 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.2 Definitions. Definitions for part 63 

standards.

Yes.

§63.3 Units and 

Abbreviations.

Units and abbreviations 

for part 63 standards.

Yes.

§63.4 Prohibited 

Activities.

Compliance date; 

circumvention; 

severability.

Yes.

§63.5 Construction/

Reconstruction.

Applicability; 

applications; approvals.

Yes.

§63.6(a) Applicability. General Provisions (GP) 

apply unless compliance 

extension; GP apply to 

area sources that become 

major.

Yes.
§63.6(b)(1)-(4) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

sources.

Standards apply at 

effective date; 3 years 

after effective date; 

upon startup; 10 years 

after construction or 

reconstruction commences 

for section 112(f).

Yes.

§63.6(b)(5) Notification. Must notify if commenced 

construction or 

reconstruction after 

proposal.

Yes.

§63.6(b)(6) [Reserved].

§63.6(b)(7) Compliance 

Dates for New 

and 

Reconstructed 

Area Sources 

That Become 

Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

immediately upon 

becoming major, 

regardless of whether 

required to comply when 

they were area sources.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(1)-(2) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing 

Sources.

Comply according to date 

in subpart, which must 

be no later than 3 years 

after effective date; 

for section 112(f) 

standards, comply within 

90 days of effective 

date unless compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(c)(3)-(4) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(c)(5) Compliance 

Dates for 

Existing Area 

Sources That 

Become Major.

Area sources that become 

major must comply with 

major source standards 

by date indicated in 

subpart or by equivalent 

time period (for 

example, 3 years).

Yes.

§63.6(d) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(1)(i) Operation & 

Maintenance.

General Duty to minimize 

emissions.

No. See 

§63.8570(b) 

for general 

duty 

requirement.

§63.6(e)(1)(ii) Operation & 

Maintenance.

Requirement to correct 

malfunctions ASAP.

No.

§63.6(e)(1)(iii) Operation &

Maintenance.

Operation and 

maintenance requirements 

enforceable independent 

of emissions 

limitations.

Yes.
§63.6(e)(2) [Reserved]. No.

§63.6(e)(3) Startup,

Shutdown, and

Malfunction

Plan (SSMP).

Requirement for startup, 

shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM) and 

SSMP; content of SSMP. 

No.

§63.6(f)(1) Compliance 

Except During 

SSM.

You must comply with 

emission standards at 

all times except during 

SSM.

No.

§63.6(f)(2)-(3) Methods for 

Determining 

Compliance.

Compliance based on 

performance test, 

operation and 

maintenance plans, 

records, inspection.

Yes.

§63.6(g) Alternative

Standard.

Procedures for getting 

an alternative standard.

Yes.

§63.6(h) Opacity/VE 

Standards.

Requirements for opacity 

and VE standards.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.6(i) Compliance 

Extension.

Procedures and criteria 

for Administrator to 

grant compliance 

extension.

Yes.

§63.6(j) Presidential 

Compliance 

Exemption.

President may exempt 

source category.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(1)-(2) Performance 

Test Dates.

Dates for conducting 

initial performance 

testing and other 

compliance 

demonstrations for 

emission limits and work 

practice standards; must 

conduct 180 days after 

first subject to rule.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(3) Section 114 

Authority.

Administrator may 

require a performance 

test under CAA section 

114 at any time.

Yes.

§63.7(a)(4) Notification of 

Delay in 

Performance 

Testing Due To 

Force Majeure.

Must notify 

Administrator of delay 

in performance testing 

due to force majeure.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(1) Notification of 

Performance 

Test.

Must notify 

Administrator 60 days 

before the test.

Yes.

§63.7(b)(2) Notification of 

Rescheduling.

Must notify 

Administrator 5 days 

before scheduled date of 

rescheduled date.

Yes.
§63.7(c) Quality 

Assurance (QA)/ 

Test Plan.

Requirements; test plan 

approval procedures; 

performance audit 

requirements; internal 

and external QA 

procedures for testing.

Yes.

§63.7(d) Testing 

Facilities.

Requirements for testing 

facilities.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(1) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Performance tests must 

be conducted under 

representative 

conditions.

No, §63.8595 

specifies 

requirements.

Cannot conduct 

performance tests during 

SSM; not a violation to 

exceed standard during 

SSM.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(2)-(3) Conditions for 

Conducting 

Performance 

Tests.

Must conduct according 

to subpart and EPA test 

methods unless 

Administrator approves 

alternative; must have 

at least three test runs 

of at least 1 hour each; 

compliance is based on 

arithmetic mean of three 

runs; conditions when 

data from an additional 

test run can be used.

Yes.

§63.7(e)(4) Testing under 

Section 114

Administrator's 

authority to require 

testing under section 

114 of the Act.

Yes.

§63.7(f) Alternative

Test Method.

Procedures by which 

Administrator can grant 

approval to use an 

alternative test method.

Yes.

§63.7(g) Performance 

Test Data 

Analysis.

Must include raw data in 

performance test report; 

must submit performance 

test data 60 days after 

end of test with the 

notification of 

compliance status.

Yes.

§63.7(h) Waiver of 

Tests.

Procedures for 

Administrator to waive 

performance test.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(1) Applicability

of Monitoring

Requirements.

Subject to all 

monitoring requirements 

in subpart.

Yes.
§63.8(a)(2) Performance 

Specifications.

Performance 

Specifications in 

appendix B of 40 CFR 

part 60 apply.

Yes.

§63.8(a)(3) [Reserved]. No.

§63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with 

Flares.

Requirements for flares 

in §63.11 apply.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(b)(1) Monitoring. Must conduct monitoring 

according to standard 

unless Administrator 

approves alternative.

Yes.

§63.8(b)(2)-(3) Multiple 

Effluents and 

Multiple 

Monitoring 

Systems.

Specific requirements 

for installing and 

reporting on monitoring 

systems.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1) Monitoring 

System 

Operation and 

Maintenance.

Maintenance consistent 

with good air pollution 

control practices.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(i) Routine and 

Predictable 

SSM.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

described in SSMP.

No.

§63.8(c)(1)(ii) SSM not in 

SSMP.

Reporting requirements 

for SSM when action is 

not described in SSMP.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(1)(iii) Compliance with 

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Requirements.

How Administrator 

determines if source 

complying with operation 

and maintenance 

requirements.

No.

§63.8(c)(2)-(3) Monitoring 

System 

Installation.

Must install to get 

representative emission 

and parameter 

measurements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(4) CMS 

Requirements.

Requirements for CMS. No, §§63.8600 

specifies 

requirements.

§63.8(c)(5) Continuous 

Opacity 

Monitoring 

System (COMS) 

Minimum 

Procedures.

COMS minimum procedures. No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(c)(6) CMS 

Requirements.

Zero and high level 

calibration check 

requirements.

Yes.

§63.8(c)(7)-(8) CMS 

Requirements.

Out-of-control periods. Yes.
§63.8(d) CMS Quality 

Control.

Requirements for CMS 

quality control.

Yes.

§63.8(e) CMS Performance

Evaluation.

Requirements for CMS 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(1)-(5) Alternative

Monitoring

Method.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative monitoring.

Yes.

§63.8(f)(6) Alternative to

Relative 

Accuracy Test.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

alternative relative 

accuracy test for 

continuous emission 

monitoring systems 

(CEMS).

No, not 

applicable.

§63.8(g) Data Reduction. COMS and CEMS data 

reduction requirements.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(a) Notification

Requirements.

Applicability; State 

delegation.

Yes.

§63.9(b) Initial 

Notifications.

Requirements for initial 

notifications.

Yes.

§63.9(c) Request for

Compliance

Extension.

Can request if cannot 

comply by date or if 

installed BACT/LAER.

Yes.

§63.9(d) Notification of 

Special

Compliance

Requirements

for New Source.

For sources that 

commence construction 

between proposal and 

promulgation and want to 

comply 3 years after 

effective date.

Yes.

§63.9(e) Notification of 

Performance

Test.

Notify Administrator 60 

days prior.

Yes.

§63.9(f) Notification of 

VE/Opacity

Test.

Notify Administrator 30 

days prior.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(g)(1) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of 

performance evaluation.

Yes.

§63.9(g)(2)-(3) Additional 

Notifications 

When Using CMS.

Notification of COMS 

data use; notification 

that relative accuracy 

alternative criterion 

were exceeded.

No, not 

applicable.

§63.9(h) Notification of 

Compliance

Status.

Contents; submittal 

requirements.

Yes.
§63.9(i) Adjustment of

Submittal 

Deadlines.

Procedures for 

Administrator to approve 

change in when 

notifications must be 

submitted.

Yes.

§63.9(j) Change in 

Previous 

Information.

Must submit within 15 

days after the change.

Yes.

§63.10(a) Recordkeeping/

Reporting.

Applicability; general 

information.

Yes.

§63.10(b)(1) General 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements.

General requirements. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(i) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

occurrence and duration 

of startups and 

shutdowns.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(ii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Recordkeeping of 

failures to meet a 

standard.

No. See 

§63.8640(c)(2) 

for 

recordkeeping 

of (1) date, 

time and 

duration; (2) 

listing of 

affected 

source or 

equipment, and 

an estimate of 

the volume of 

each regulated 

pollutant 

emitted over 

the standard; 

and (3) 

actions to 

minimize 

emissions and 

correct the

failure.

§63.10(b)(2)(iii) Records Related 

to SSM.

Maintenance records. Yes.

§63.10(b)(2)(iv)-

(v)

Records Related 

to SSM.

Actions taken to 

minimize emissions 

during SSM.

No.

§63.10(b)(2)(vi)-

(xii) and (xiv)

CMS Records. Records when CMS is 

malfunctioning, 

inoperative or out-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(f) 

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.

Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

General Comments

• Can EPA provide multiple years of sales data for the “36 small ultimate parent 

companies?” Which year is presented in the RIA?

We do not have this information. The year basis in the RIA is the most recent 

available.

• Is possible to get a cross-tab between the RIA Tables 3-1 , 3-3 and the list of small 

businesses and their revenues, showing which strategy each business is expected to 

adopt? Specific, questions include which small entities will need to replace pollution 

control equipment installed since 2004 and which small entities will need to install 

FF+ACI?

We do not have enough facility specific data to identify the pollution control 

strategy each business is likely to adopt. 

• Which small entities do you anticipate being at risk of closure (up to 2 in the primary 

proposal, up to 5 in the alternative)? What are the emissions benefits associated with 

these facilities? Are they located in particular geographic areas? Areas for which the 

average benefits per ton calculation may be a significant overestimate? Are any of 

these 2 (or 5) best performing in another pollutant?

Our analysis was done in the aggregate only. We have not identified specific 

entities at risk of closure

• What is the geographic distribution of emissions? Do these emissions correlate to 

nonattainment areas for any criteria pollutant?

Analysis of the geographic distribution of emissions is not part of the MACT 

standard development process, is beyond the scope of this project, and has not 

been conducted. We do not have the site-specific emission reductions 

information needed to do this analysis.

• Please elaborate on why the listing of secondary impacts doesn’t relate increased 

electricity use to GHG emissions.

We do not have information on GHG emissions related to electricity use for this 

rule. 

• Costs should be discounted at 3% as well.

We do not believe that a 3% discount rate is reasonable for this industry and 

would result in an underestimate of costs. Nonetheless, we could include this 

information in the final rule, but it would be burdensome to do it for this 

proposal.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• The baseline for the secondary air emissions seems to be incorrect (e.g., missing 

mercury MACT). EPA will say that the numbers won’t change very much and they could 

be right. But there should be a sentence or two that touches on this topic.

We have looked into this issue and do not believe we can calculate a meaningful 

number for secondary emissions of mercury.

• The RIA needs to incorporate key documents such as the cost and emission 

reduction impacts memo. The commenter suggests attaching them as 

appendices to the RIA.

The key documents are referenced in the RIA and will appear in the docket with 

docket entry numbers that are in close order with the docket number for the 

RIA, to facilitate finding the documents in the docket

• The cost analysis should remove the property tax.

Property tax is a standard component of our cost analyses

• The treatment of employment effects are unwarranted given the magnitude of the rule. 

Please remove.

The treatment of employment effects in this RIA is consistent with other MACT 

RIAs. Even though the magnitude is less than others, we see no reason to 

remove the discussion.

• Human health benefits associated with PM 2.5 reductions should be expressed as “cobenifits.”

We agree that the PM benefits are considered co-benefits, unless we are 

addressing methodology of how we determine the benefits from reducing PM2.5.

The clarification added in page 240 of the preamble is appropriate and we will 

make sure it is consistent in both documents.

• Alternatives

o It is not clear how the alternative is more costly and whether emissions 

averaging plays a role or the subcategorization. What happens without the 

subcategorization by size but with averaging?

The alternative is more costly because it is based on the average of the top 

12% of the sources for which we have emissions data rather than the 

average of the top 12% of all of the sources in the industry. As a result, the 

alternative is based on the average of fewer, better performing sources and 

is more stringent.

o To what extent has subcategorization by raw materials been considered? Are 

there still gaps that can be filled?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

We lack the data to consider subcategorization by raw materials and the 

industry has expressed unwillingness to provide the needed data.

o What are the factors that create significantly different compliance costs across 

regions? Are these factors that could support subcategorization?

We do not have the data necessary to perform that analysis. Such factors 

would not support subcategorization
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• Annualization of costs.

o The presentation of costs is confusing. The analysis presents “annual costs,” 

which appears to be a sum of annualized capital costs and annual operating 

costs. When not presented as a top line summary, these should be separated 

out. 

We will review how we present the cost information in the RIA. It is our 

understanding that that the real concern is that small firms will have difficulty 

getting financing for the emissions controls capital cost. This fact is not really 

highlighted in the current way costs are presented. We may be able to make this 

more clear. In addition, we are adding additional discussion on the concern that 

small businesses may not be able to obtain financing for the emission controls 

capital costs. 

o Where does testing, monitoring and reporting fit into these costs? What portion 

is up-front establishment of standards and what portion annual? How much 

needs to be repeated with every permit renewal?

The testing costs are included in the total capital cost and have been 

annualized over 5 years at 7% interest for inclusion with the annual costs. 

The visible emissions monitoring costs are also included with the annual 

costs. The remaining monitoring costs are part of the kiln and control 

device operating costs.

o Annualization of capital costs relies on the availability of financing or selffinancing out of cash reserves or bonds, and estimates of the number of closures 

relies on annualization. The presented risk of closure based on annual plus 

annualized costs may significant understate the actual risk of closure if the small 

entity is unable to finance the capital investment to start with, particularly in an 

environment in which capital utilization is low.

 Does EPA have any information with respect to loans available to these 

small entities for emissions control equipment (as opposed to capital 

investment)? EPA assumes 20-year loans at 7% interest are available to 

small entities; does EPA have information to support this assumption?

EPA amortizes the capital investment over the life of the 

equipment. EPA does not have information regarding loan 

availability.

 Does EPA have any information that would support assuming small 

entities can self-finance capital costs?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

We do not have this information. We plan to add language which 

recognizes the potential difficulties in obtaining financing.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

• Monitoring and paperwork

o Please request comment in the reporting and recordkeeping section that 

emphasizes the intent to align EPA requirements with existing business 

practices. Ask for ways in which EPA could streamline recordkeeping by relying 

on existing QA/QC.

We will ask for comment on this

o What other flexibilities could be considered to minimize the frequency of data 

collection or reporting? Can EPA reduce the frequency of reporting as a small 

entity established a record of compliance? 

We are unaware of any additional flexibilities. The frequency is as low as 

we can allow.