```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75621-75719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28125]

[[Page 75621]]

Vol. 79

Thursday,

No. 243

December 18, 2014

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 63

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP 
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 243 / Thursday, December 18, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 75622]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
(or particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay 
Ceramics only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work 
practice standards, where applicable. The proposed rule, which has been 
informed by input from industry and other stakeholders, including small 
businesses, would protect air quality and promote public health by 
reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before February 17, 
2015. A copy of comments on the information collection provisions 
should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or 
before January 20, 2015.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting a public 
hearing by January 15, 2014 the EPA will hold a public hearing on 
January 20, 2015 from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] to 5:00 p.m. 
[Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711. If the EPA holds a public hearing, the EPA will keep the 
record of the hearing open for 30 days after completion of the hearing 
to provide an opportunity for submission of rebuttal and supplementary 
information.

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.
     Email: A-and-R-docket@epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-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-HQ-OAR-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. 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.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
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-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-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents in the dockets are listed in the 
regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information 
is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If requested by January 15, 2014, we will hold a 
public hearing on January 20, 2015, from 1:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard 
Time] to 5:00 p.m. [Eastern Standard Time] at the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency building located at 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. Please contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of 
the Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-7966; 
email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov; to request a hearing, register 
to speak at the hearing or to inquire as to whether or not a hearing 
will be held. The last day to pre-register in advance to speak at the 
hearing will be December 30, 2014. Additionally, requests to speak will 
be taken the day of the hearing at the hearing registration desk, 
although

[[Page 75623]]

preferences on speaking times may not be able to be fulfilled. If you 
require the service of a translator or special accommodations such as 
audio description, we ask that you pre-register for the hearing, as we 
may not be able to arrange such accommodations without advance notice. 
The hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to present 
data, views or arguments concerning the proposed action. The EPA will 
make every effort to accommodate all speakers who arrive and register. 
Because this hearing is being held at a U.S. government facility, 
individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show 
valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain 
access to the meeting room. Please note that the REAL ID Act, passed by 
Congress in 2005, established new requirements for entering federal 
facilities. If your driver's license is issued by Alaska, American 
Samoa, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 
Montana, New York, Oklahoma or the state of Washington, you must 
present an additional form of identification to enter the federal 
building. Acceptable alternative forms of identification include: 
Federal employee badges, passports, enhanced driver's licenses and 
military identification cards. In addition, you will need to obtain a 
property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon 
leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass 
to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, 
cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations 
will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. The EPA 
may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will 
not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements and 
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be 
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting 
information presented at the public hearing. Verbatim transcripts of 
the hearing and written statements will be included in the docket for 
the rulemaking. The EPA will make every effort to follow the schedule 
as closely as possible on the day of the hearing; however, please plan 
for the hearing to run either ahead of schedule or behind schedule. 
Again, a hearing will not be held on this rulemaking unless requested. 
A hearing needs to be requested by December 23, 2014. Again, please 
contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of the Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-01), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number: 
(919) 541-7966; email address: garrett.pamela@epa.gov to request a 
hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed rule 
for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing 
Group, Sector Policies and Program Division (D243-04), Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; Telephone number: (919) 
541-2825; Fax number: (919) 541-5450; Email address: 
nizich.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes several 
acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data 
inventories and risk modeling. While this list may not be exhaustive, 
to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the 
EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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
DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
[deg]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/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MMBtu/yr million British thermal units per year
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
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
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O2 oxygen
OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring
OMB Office of Management and Budget
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
SBE Standard Brick Equivalent
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
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
[mu]g/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
[mu]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
WHO World Health Organization

[[Page 75624]]

    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. 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 
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 
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 
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 CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 
standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the 
performance of the MACT. We issued the NESHAP for Brick and Structural 
Clay Products (BSCP) manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing on May 16, 2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded 
by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit on March 13, 2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the 
original NESHAP, we are 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 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 
periodic kilns, for dioxins/furans from tunnel kilns and for 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, continuous 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

[[Page 75625]]

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 proposing work 
practice standards for shuttle kilns and for 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, continuous 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.
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......................  ..................              0.0209
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Examples of potentially
                             Category                              NAICS code \a\        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.

    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 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

[[Page 75626]]

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 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-
OAR-2013-0291 (for BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) or Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
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 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 the associated costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts.

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 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. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by 
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment. 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 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 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 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

[[Page 75627]]

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 ``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 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.
    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-OAR-2013-0290 and 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In addition, the dockets A-99-30 and OAR-2002-
0054 are incorporated by reference for BSCP. The dockets A-2000-48, 
OAR-2002-0055 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 are incorporated by reference 
for clay ceramics.

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 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. 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 manufacturing 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.

[[Page 75628]]

Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns have two process streams, 
including: (1) A process stream that exhausts directly to the 
atmosphere or to an 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 manufacturing 
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 manufacturing rule.

C. Does the proposed rule apply to me?

    This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule applies to owners or 
operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the 
requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of 
HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or 
has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) 
or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

D. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet?

1. Emission Limitations
    We are proposing a choice of emission limits for total non-Hg 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 
([micro]g/dscm) at 7 percent O2) for new and existing tunnel 
kilns in two subcategories based on kiln size. In this proposed BSCP 
manufacturing 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.

    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...................  .......................  .......................  2.2 E-05 lb/ton OR 2.7
(>= 10 tph)..........................                                                     E-04 lb/hr OR 29
                                                                                          [micro]g/dscm at 7-
                                                                                          percent O2 for each
                                                                                          existing large tunnel
                                                                                          kiln at facility.
Small tunnel kilns...................  .......................  .......................  2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR
(hr OR 70
                                                                                          [micro]g/dscm at 7-
                                                                                          percent O2 for each
                                                                                          existing small tunnel
                                                                                          kiln at facility.
All tunnel kilns.....................  57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent  0.16 lb/ton PM OR 0.040
                                        for collection of all    gr/dscf PM at 7
                                        existing tunnel kilns    percent O2 OR 0.023 lb/
                                        at facility.             hr non-Hg HAP metals
                                                                 for each existing
                                                                 tunnel kiln at
                                                                 facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Limits for new sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns...................  .......................  .......................  2.0 E-05 lb/ton OR 2.4
(>= 10 tph)..........................                                                     E-04 lb/hr OR 13
                                                                                          [micro]g/dscm at 7-
                                                                                          percent O2 for each
                                                                                          new large tunnel kiln
                                                                                          at facility.
Small tunnel kilns...................  .......................  .......................  2.0 E-04 lb/ton OR
(hr OR 70
                                                                                          [micro]g/dscm at 7-
                                                                                          percent O2 for each
                                                                                          new small tunnel kiln
                                                                                          at facility.
All tunnel kilns.....................  57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent  0.022 lb/ton PM OR
                                        for collection of all    0.0066 gr/dscf PM at 7-
                                        new tunnel kilns at      percent O2 OR 0.0032
                                        facility.                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

[[Page 75629]]

work practice standards would require maintaining and inspecting the 
burners and associated combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the 
specific burner type to optimize combustion; keeping records of each 
burner tune-up; and submitting a report for each tune-up conducted.

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, the owner or operator would be required to vent 
the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust 
temperature reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F). In addition, no 
bricks or other product may be introduced to the kiln until the kiln 
exhaust temperature reaches 400[emsp14][deg]F and the exhaust is being 
vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator would be 
required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the 
kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300[emsp14][deg]F. In addition, no 
bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 
temperature falls to 300[emsp14][deg]F and the exhaust is no longer 
being vented through the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being vented 
through the APCD, the owner or operator 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[emsp14][deg]F. For shutdown, no bricks 
or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 
temperature falls to 300[emsp14][deg]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 the facility's 40 CFR part 70 operating 
permit or at least every five years following the initial performance 
test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being 
revised.
    Under today's proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the owner or 
operator would have to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg 
and PM (or non-Hg HAP metals). We are proposing that the owner or 
operator measure HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following 
methods:

     EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources--Isokinetic Method,'' 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-8;
     EPA Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, 
when no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2 dissolved 
in water droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) 
is present;
     EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic 
and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix 
A, provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of 
section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can 
demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted 
at a similar source; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by 
the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.

    Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 2 in 
40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the 
owner or operator would sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using 
proposed Equation 3 in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total 
facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 
limitation.
    If the owner or operator chooses to comply with one of the two PM 
emission limits, we are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM 
emissions using one of the following methods:

     EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions 
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
     EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From 
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where the test 
results would report the weight of the PM on the filter 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 the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg HAP 
metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limits, the 
owner or operator 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. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other 
approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions.
    The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 
requirements that we are proposing. Prior to the initial performance 
test, the owner or operator would need to install the continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) equipment to be used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the operating limits. During the initial 
test, the owner or operator would use the CPMS to establish site-
specific operating parameter values that represent the operating 
limits.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 
and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for 
the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or 
operator would be required to determine the average feed rate from the 
three test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the 
minimum site-specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different 
average feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/
Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the 
site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the owner or 
operator would need to submit analyses and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD 
systems.
    For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a 
BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses 
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA 
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are proposing that the owner 
or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA 
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and determine the 3-
hour block average pressure drop. The average of the three test runs 
establishes the minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 
Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the 
bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the 
performance test. The owner or operator 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, the 
owner or operator would need to establish the limestone

[[Page 75630]]

feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to 
the performance test and maintain the feeder setting for the 1-week 
period that precedes the performance test and during the performance 
test. Finally, the owner or operator would need to document the source 
and grade of the limestone used during the performance test.
    For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM/non-Hg 
HAP metals performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and chemical 
addition rate (if applicable) during the HF/HCl/Cl2 
performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM/
non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests. For each 
wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator 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 the 
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 the site-specific operating limit.
    For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are proposing 
that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate 
during the Hg performance test and determine the 3-hour block average 
flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum 
site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.
    For a source with no APCD installed, we are proposing that the 
owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using 
proposed Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator 
would use the results from the performance test to determine the 
emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the 
design capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during 
the performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 
percent of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns 
at a facility, the owner or operator would need to sum the maximum 
potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility 
maximum potential HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 
health-based emission limitation for acid gases. If the total facility 
maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the proposed 
limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator determine the 
maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum potential 
HCl-equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. If there 
are multiple kilns, the owner or operator 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 the 
operating limit(s) for process rate.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

    Today's BSCP manufacturing rule proposes that the owner or operator 
demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation that 
applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the requirements in 
the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan and document 
conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator would need to 
operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during 
the initial performance test as described in the following paragraphs. 
The CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, 
including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at 
least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per 
hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator would have to 
operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner 
or operator 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, the owner or operator 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, 
the owner or operator would need to have at least 75 percent of the 
recorded readings for that period.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) 
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 not 
flowing freely, according to load cell output, carrier gas/lime flow 
indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system or other 
system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and 
complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or 
operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per ton 
of fired product basis) at or above the level established during the 
HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record the feeder setting 
once each shift.
    The proposed rule would provide the option to use either a BLD 
system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the PM/non-Hg 
HAP metals emission limit.
    For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm 
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner 
or operator 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, the owner or operator would not count any alarm time if 
inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is 
required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must 
count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If corrective action is 
initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the owner or operator must 
count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate 
corrective action.
    For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with 
the procedures of EPA Method 22, ``Visual Determination of Fugitive 
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,'' 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7. During the VE observations, the kiln would 
need to be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the 
owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete 
corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 
30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may 
decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly 
for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the 
owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete 
corrective actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator 
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 the owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of 
EPA Method 22 testing to a weekly basis.
    For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit.

[[Page 75631]]

    For a DLA, we are proposing that the owner or operator 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. The owner 
or operator 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, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the 
bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during 
normal kiln operation. Any period in which the bypass damper is opened 
allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA would trigger 
corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator 
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 the side of the hopper; (3) 
installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a 
video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level 
indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional 
limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not contain adequate 
limestone, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and 
complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or 
operator 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. The owner or operator 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, the owner or 
operator would need to monitor VE, as described in the previous 
paragraph.
    For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
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/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) 
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/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.
    For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously 
monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or 
above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
    For sources with no APCD, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with 
the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In addition, if the last 
calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at 
or below the proposed health-based emission limitation for acid gases, 
then we are proposing that the owner or operator collect and record 
data documenting the process rate of the kiln and reduce the data to 3-
hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to maintain the 
kiln process rate at or below the kiln process rate operating limit(s) 
that would enable the 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 64, subpart 
A), which are identified in proposed Table 8 of 40 CFR part 64, 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 manufacturing 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 BSCP manufacturing 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 the owner or operator keep the 
following records:

     All reports and notifications submitted to comply with 
this proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule.
     Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions 
taken.
     Records of each instance in which the owner or operator 
did not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating 
limits).
     Records of production rates.
     Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 
procedures.
     Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 
APCD.
     Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 
conformance.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the periodic kiln work practice standard.
     Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the 
dioxin/furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
     Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 
taken.

    We are also proposing that the owner or operator submit the 
following reports and notifications:

     Notifications required by the General Provisions.
     Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days 
after the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
     Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests 
and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 
before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is 
scheduled.
     Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test.
     Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 
following completion of a

[[Page 75632]]

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 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 CDX 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.searchERTSubmission). A description and 
instructions for use of the ERT can be found on the ERT Web site 
(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 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. 
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 reduced ICRs, the general public benefits from the 
agency's ability to conduct 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 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 readily-available in a standard 
electronic format, air agencies

[[Page 75633]]

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 whenever they want 
or 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 Web site that 
stores the submitted electronic data is easily accessible to the public 
and provides a user-friendly 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, air 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

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.
    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 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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 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 
manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a mass of 
HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion about the 
development of the health-based standard for the proposed BSCP 
manufacturing rule is provided in section IV.J of this preamble.
    This proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 ICR 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.
    This proposed BSCP manufacturing 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

[[Page 75634]]

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 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, 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 size subcategories 
in the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we conducted a set of 
statistical analyses on the emissions dataset. 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 dataset. 
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 datasets, which are available for 
a much larger percentage of the kilns in the industry, providing more 
representative kiln datasets for the analyses.
    We found that the median of the emissions data from kilns in the 
large kiln dataset was statistically different than the median of the 
emissions data from kilns in the small kiln dataset for all three 
pollutants. Also, based on a logistic model, we found high association 
between emissions and the hypothesized design capacity classification. 
Finally, we conducted a cluster analysis and considered all three 
pollutants together to investigate whether the combined dataset 
supported changing the definitions of small and large kilns. This 
cluster analysis supported the subcategory definitions from the vacated 
rule. (For more information on the statistical analyses, see ``Analysis 
of Potential Subcategories for BSCP Tunnel Kilns'' in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-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.
    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 five 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 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

[[Page 75635]]

preamble. We also calculated the MACT floor in lb/hr and concentration 
units ([mu]g/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.
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 FF-based 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 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 FF-based 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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. 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 United States 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 
(D.C. 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 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 HAP 
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 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 three runs), we can be 99 percent confident 
that the reported level will fall at or below the UPL value.

[[Page 75636]]

    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 dataset. According to the skewness hypothesis 
test, if S is less than two times the SES, the data 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 two 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 
log-transformed 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 three to decrease measurement imprecision to around 
10 to 15 percent (as noted in the previous paragraph), resulting in 
values referred to as ``3xRDL'' values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 datasets (see 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 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. 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 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.

[[Page 75637]]

        Table 5--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Brick and Structural Clay Products Existing Sources a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                     Parameter                Hg \b\                     PM b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph).....  Avg. of best            1.6 E-05 lb/ton.......
                                      performing sources.    1.7 E-04 lb/hr........
                                                             14 [mu]g/dscm.........
                                     MACT floor............  2.2 E-05 lb/ton.......
                                                             2.7 E-04 lb/hr........
                                                             29 [mu]g/dscm.........
Small tunnel kilns (ton.......
                                      performing sources.    0.0010 lb/hr..........
                                                             62 [mu]g/dscm.........
                                     MACT floor............  2.0 E-04 lb/ton.......
                                                             0.0011 lb/hr..........
                                                             70 [mu]g/dscm.........
All kilns..........................  Avg. of best            ......................  0.041 lb/ton.
                                      performing sources.                            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 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 
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 Sources a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Subcategory                   Parameter               Hg \b\                      PM b c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph)....  Avg. of top performer  1.5 E-05 lb/ton.....
                                                           1.8 E-04 lb/hr......
                                                           10 [mu]g/dscm.......
                                    MACT floor...........  2.0 E-05 lb/ton.....
                                                           2.4 E-04 lb/hr......
                                                           13 [mu]g/dscm.......
Small tunnel kilns (ton.....
                                                           0.0010 lb/hr........
                                                           62 [mu]g/dscm.......
                                    MACT floor...........  2.0 E-04 lb/ton.....
                                                           0.0011 lb/hr........
                                                           70 [mu]g/dscm.......
All kilns.........................  Avg. of top performer  ....................  0.0060 lb/ton.
                                                                                 0.0020 gr/dscf.

[[Page 75638]]

 
                                    MACT floor...........  ....................  0.022 lb/ton \d\.
                                                                                 0.0066 gr/dscf \d\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit 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.
    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 manufacturing source category, we have limited 
datasets 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-the-floor 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 the associated costs, energy and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts.
    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 2.86 
tpy and cost an additional $22.8 million per year (2011 dollars), for a 
cost effectiveness of $7,960,000 per ton of total additional non-Hg HAP 
metals removed. The beyond-the-floor option for Hg is estimated to 
achieve additional Hg reductions of 0.0625 tpy (125 pounds per year) 
and cost an additional $9.25 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 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 the subcategories. Therefore, the EPA is not 
proposing a beyond-the-floor limit for new sources in this proposed 
BSCP manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based standards for 
existing and new sources?

    In developing the proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 CAA section 112(d)(4) standard and how the EPA set the level 
of the proposed standard.

[[Page 75639]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
Be Carcinogenic to Humans'' (which are considered equivalent to the 
1986 groups A, B, C, D and E respectively).

Health threshold standards may not be set for pollutants that are 
carcinogenic.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 United States 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 manufacturing 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 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 manufacturing 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 meter ([micro]g/
m\3\).\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 subgroups \10\) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/m\3\. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
     There is a significant body of scientific literature 
addressing the health effects of acute exposure to HCl.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen 
Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effects of acute exposure to humans and animals to 
Cl2 have been well characterized. Similar to HCl, 
Cl2 is

[[Page 75640]]

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/m\3\)) have been 
shown to cause nose, eyes and throat irritation in humans. Acute 
exposure to high levels (above 40 mg/m\3\) of Cl2 in humans 
can result in chest pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis and pulmonary 
edema. Chronic (long-term) exposure to Cl2 gas in 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 [micro]g/m\3\.\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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 fluoride is a 
respiratory tract irritant capable of causing severe tissue damage in 
the respiratory system. Acute (short-term) 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The chronic inhalation noncancer human health value the EPA uses 
for HF is the REL of 0.014 mg/m\3\ 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 dose-response assessment perspective and we, therefore, use 
it as an alternate value in the absence of an 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 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

[[Page 75641]]

(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/m\3\ based on mild eye and 
respiratory irritation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     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?
    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 
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 on the 
unavailability of data to determine a standard.\23\ However, for the 
proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 
manufacturing 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. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
    \25\ 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 co-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 industries for which 
the EPA has decided not to set a health-based limit,\27\

[[Page 75642]]

and it would not be expected to provide a significant public health 
benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 172.
    \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 health-based 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 
Hg. 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 Hg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/3 
(September 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
area-weighted 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 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.
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 co-located 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 nearby non-
BSCP emissions, the location and emissions associated with other 
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 nearby other facilities, such as 
those in the NEI, have not undergone the same level of detailed review. 
Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain 
significant uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the 
large footprint of BSCP facilities, 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 nearby 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 co-located 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 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 health-based 
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 CAA section 
112(d)(4) should be set at the level at which no 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

[[Page 75643]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 one 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ USEPA Human Exposure Model; available at http://www2.epa.gov/fera/download-human-exposure-model-hem.

                   Table 7--Dose-Response Values for Chronic Inhalation Exposure to Acid Gases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Pollutant                     CAS Number \a\   RfC (mg/m\3\)               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.

                                      Table 8--Dose-Response Values for Acute Inhalation Exposure to Acid Gases \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         AEGL-1 (1-hr)   AEGL-2 (1-hr)     ERPG-1 (mg/     ERPG-2 (mg/
                       Pollutant                            CAS No.        (mg/m\3\)       (mg/m\3\)          m\3\)           m\3\)             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),

[[Page 75644]]

the potential for adverse effects increases. For a typical risk 
assessment where multiple pollutants are co-emitted, we aggregate 
noncancer 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 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 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 HCl-equivalent 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-case meteorology 
(from one 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 
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 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 environmental risk screen methodology outlined above, are not 
expected to have an adverse environmental impact.
    Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the health-based 
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 manufacturing 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 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See the memorandum titled ``Rationale for Establishing Work 
Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns'' in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 75645]]

or near ambient temperature, the kiln is opened and the fired products 
are removed.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on responses to the 2008 EPA survey sent to the BSCP 
industry, periodic kiln cycle times range from 35 to 168 hours 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Development of Work Practice Standard
    Information provided to the EPA indicates there are six operational

[[Page 75646]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See the memorandum titled ``Work Practice Standards for 
Periodic Kiln Operations,'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, de-hydroxylation 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 demanded by the market, thereby avoiding the generation of 
additional HAP emissions.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 [deg]F to 1,700 [deg]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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Product Quality. The time and temperature relationships previously 
described affect the ultimate quality and acceptability of the finished 
product. An ``over-fired'' product 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kiln Load/Kiln Technology. For proper combustion, it is important 
that the periodic kiln not be overloaded, as 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Id.

     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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See the email titled ``Periodic kiln language,'' in the 
docket for the proposed BSCP rulemaking.

     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 frequency of 
inspection and maintenance of the following items:
    [cir] Calibration of temperature measuring devices
    [cir] Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios
    [cir] 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 dataset) contained dioxin/furan estimates below one-
half of the RDL.

[[Page 75647]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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 manufacturing 
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 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 [deg]F for startup 
and from 150 to 300 [deg]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.
    Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for periods of 
startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns with APCD. For startup, the 
owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln 
through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 
[deg]F. In addition, no bricks or other product may be introduced to 
the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 400 [deg]F and the 
exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or 
operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through 
the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 300 [deg]F. In 
addition, no bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the 
kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 [deg]F and the exhaust is no 
longer being vented through the APCD. When the kiln exhaust is being 
vented through the APCD, the owner or operator 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 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 [deg]F. For shutdown, no 
bricks or other product may be put into the kiln once the kiln exhaust 
temperature falls to 300 [deg]F. When there are bricks in the kiln, the 
owner or operator 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 manufacturing 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

[[Page 75648]]

manufacturing 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, Cl2, PM (or non-Hg HAP metals) and Hg be 
demonstrated by an initial performance test. The proposed BSCP 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 
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 manufacturing 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 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 
manufacturing 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 
manufacturing 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 BSCP manufacturing 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, 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?

    The owner or operator 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 
manufacturing 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 BSCP manufacturing rule.
    We are also proposing that the owner or operator 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 the owner or operator 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 the owner or operator 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 malfunction which 
occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have 
caused an exceedance of an emission limit.
    This proposed BSCP manufacturing rule also includes a requirement 
for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is discussed 
further in section III.I of this preamble.
    We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed BSCP 
manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

    The CAA requires that sources subject to the BSCP manufacturing 
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 the facility is operating 
in the first 3 years of an operating permit, the owner or operator will 
need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate the requirements of this 
BSCP manufacturing rule. If the facility is in the last 2 years of an 
operating permit, the owner or operator will need to incorporate the 
requirement of this

[[Page 75649]]

BSCP manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the 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 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 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 datasets, 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 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing industry representatives noted the high 
percentage of test runs below the respective detection 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-OAR-2013-0291.
    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 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).
3. Emissions Averaging
    As part of the EPA's general policy of encouraging the use of 
flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly monitored and 
enforced, we are also requesting comment in this proposed rule on 
whether to include emissions averaging as an alternative to the 
individual MACT floor emission limits in the proposed rule. 
Specifically, the EPA is requesting comment on whether to consider 
alternative emissions averaging limits for PM (in units of lb/ton or 
gr/dscf at 7 percent O2) and total non-Hg HAP metals (in 
units of lb/hr) for existing tunnel kilns. Emissions averaging can 
provide sources the flexibility to comply in the least costly manner 
while still maintaining regulation that is workable and enforceable. 
Emissions averaging would not be applicable to new sources and could 
only be used between existing tunnel kilns in the same size subcategory 
(large or small) at a particular BSCP facility.
    Emissions averaging would allow owners and operators of an affected 
source to demonstrate that the source complies with the emission limits 
by averaging the emissions from an individual affected unit that is 
emitting above the emission limits with other affected units at the 
same facility that are emitting below the emission limits.
    We are requesting comment on whether to include an emissions 
averaging compliance alternative in which emissions averaging 
represents an equivalent, more flexible, and less costly alternative to 
controlling certain emission points to MACT levels. A limited form of 
averaging could be implemented that would not lessen the stringency of 
the MACT floor limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost 
and energy savings to owners and

[[Page 75650]]

operators. We also recognize that we must ensure that any emissions 
averaging option can be implemented and enforced, will be clear to 
sources, and would be no less stringent than unit by unit 
implementation of the MACT floor limits.
    The EPA has concluded that it is permissible under the appropriate 
circumstances to establish within a NESHAP a unified compliance regimen 
that permits averaging within an affected source across individual 
affected units subject to the standard under certain conditions. 
Averaging across affected units is permitted only if it can be 
demonstrated that the total quantity of any particular HAP that may be 
emitted by that portion of a contiguous major source that is subject to 
the NESHAP will not be greater under the averaging mechanism than it 
could be if each individual affected unit complied separately with the 
applicable standard. Under this test, the practical outcome of 
averaging is equivalent to compliance with the MACT floor limits by 
each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that the MACT 
standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions reductions is, 
therefore, fully effectuated.
    In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain limits 
on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These limits 
include: (1) No averaging between different types of pollutants, (2) no 
averaging between sources that are not part of the same affected 
source, (3) no averaging between individual sources within a single 
major source if the individual sources are not subject to the same 
NESHAP, and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources.
    Any emissions averaging alternative to the proposed rule 
requirements would fully satisfy each of these criteria. First, 
emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources 
at a single existing affected source, and would only be permitted 
between individual sources subject to the Brick and Structural Clay 
NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not be permitted between two 
or more different affected sources or between two or more sources in 
different subcategories. Finally, new sources could not use emissions 
averaging. In addition, any emissions averaging alternative would 
require each facility that intends to utilize emissions averaging to 
submit an emissions averaging plan, which provides additional assurance 
that the necessary criteria will be followed. In such an emissions 
averaging plan, the facility would include the identification of: (1) 
All units in the averaging group, (2) the control technology installed, 
(3) the process parameter that will be monitored, (4) the specific 
control technology or pollution prevention measure to be used, (5) the 
test plan for the measurement of the HAP being averaged, and (6) the 
operating parameters to be monitored for each control device. Upon 
receipt, the regulatory authority would not be able to approve an 
emissions averaging plan containing averaging between emissions of 
different types of pollutants or between sources in different 
subcategories.
    This emissions averaging alternative would also exclude new 
affected sources from the emissions averaging provision. The EPA 
believes emissions averaging is not appropriate for new sources because 
it is most cost effective to integrate state-of-the-art controls into 
equipment design and to install the technology during construction of 
new sources. One reason to allow emissions averaging under certain 
circumstances is to give existing sources flexibility to achieve 
compliance at diverse points with varying degrees of add-on control 
already in place in the most cost-effective and technically reasonable 
fashion. This flexibility is not needed for new sources because they 
can be designed and constructed with compliance in mind.
    With concern about the equivalency of emissions reductions from 
averaging and non-averaging in mind, we would also include under the 
emissions averaging provision caps on the current emissions from each 
of the sources in the averaging group. The emissions for each unit in 
the averaging group would be capped at the emission level being 
achieved on the effective date of the final rule. These caps would 
ensure that emissions do not increase above the emission levels that 
sources currently are designed, operated, and maintained to achieve. In 
the absence of performance tests, in documenting these caps, these 
sources would document the type, design, and operating specification of 
control devices installed on the effective date of the final rule to 
ensure that existing controls are not removed or operated less 
efficiently. By including this provision in this proposed rule, we 
would further ensure that emissions averaging results in environmental 
benefits equivalent to or better than without emissions averaging.
    In addition, we would plan to include a discount factor of 10 
percent that would be applied when emissions averaging is used. This 
discount factor will further ensure that averaging will be at least as 
stringent as the MACT floor limits in the absence of averaging. The EPA 
is soliciting comment on use of a discount factor and whether 10 
percent is the appropriate discount factor or whether the appropriate 
discount factor is somewhere in the range of 5% to 25%. The emissions 
averaging provision would not apply to individual units if the unit 
shares a common stack with units in other subcategories, because in 
that circumstance it is not possible to distinguish the emissions from 
each individual unit.
    The alternative emissions averaging provisions for which we are 
requesting comment in this proposed rule are based in part on the 
emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). 
The legal basis and rationale for the HON emissions averaging 
provisions were provided in the preamble to the final HON (59 FR 19425, 
April 22, 1994).
4. Subcategories Based on Raw Materials
    The Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to create subcategories which 
distinguish among ``classes, types, and sizes of sources.'' Section 
112(d)(1). EPA is taking comment on subcategorizing with regard to 
potential standards for mercury emitted by brick kilns. Were EPA to do 
so, each subcategory would have its own floor and standard, reflecting 
performance of the sources within that subcategory.
    The EPA may create a subcategory applicable to a single HAP, rather 
than to all HAP emitted by the source category, if the facts warrant. 
Normally, any basis for subcategorizing must be related to an effect on 
emissions, rather than to some difference among sources which does not 
affect emissions performance. The subcategorization possibility for 
mercury which we are considering is the mercury concentration of the 
raw materials in the kiln's clay mine, or geographic location.
    The EPA does not have sufficient data to determine if mercury 
emissions correlate with the mercury content of the clay used as raw 
material by the kiln. Additionally, EPA does not have data that show to 
what extent mercury content of clay varies by kiln location (i.e., 
geographical distinction) or within a given source of clay, and to what 
extent a source could reduce mercury emissions by using an alternate 
source of clay with lower mercury content.
    If data were available to show that the amount of mercury in the 
raw materials significantly affected mercury emissions, and that kilns 
could not reasonably use an alternative source of clay with lower 
mercury content, kilns

[[Page 75651]]

using raw materials with higher mercury content might be considered a 
different type or class of kiln because their process necessarily 
requires the use of that higher-mercury raw materials.
    However, data are not available to support subcategorization based 
on the amount of mercury in the raw materials. Such data would need to 
show a correlation between raw material content and mercury emissions 
and also need to indicate sharp disparities in raw material mercury 
content that readily differentiate among types of sources. 
Additionally, data would also be needed to show that alternate sources 
of raw materials with lower mercury content are not available or 
feasible. We are specifically asking for mercury emissions data coupled 
with raw materials mercury data. We are also asking for information 
regarding the availability of low mercury clay and the feasibility of 
using low mercury clay to reduce emissions. EPA realizes that if this 
data is not currently available, obtaining this data may not be 
possible within the current schedule to promulgate the final rule. 
Therefore, EPA requests comment on possible approaches to resolve this 
issue.

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) 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 manufacturing rule applies to owners or 
operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the 
requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of 
HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or 
has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Acid gases  (lb/                                            Dioxins/furans
           Subcategory                  hr HCl-          Hg  (lb/ton)      PM \b\  (lb/ton)      (ng/dscm at 7
                                    equivalent) \a\                                             percent O2) \c\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Limits for existing sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                   140           1.2 E-04                0.33                 1.5
 kilns...........................
Sanitaryware manual glaze          .................  .................               33
 application.....................
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   .................  .................               12
 application.....................
Sanitaryware robot glaze           .................  .................                8.8
 application.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             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                   140           1.2 E-04                0.095                0.37
 kilns...........................
Sanitaryware manual glaze          .................  .................                3.8
 application.....................
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   .................  .................                3.2
 application.....................

[[Page 75652]]

 
Sanitaryware robot glaze           .................  .................                2.2
 application.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

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.
    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, the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust 
from the kiln through the APCD by the time the kiln exhaust temperature 
reaches 40 [deg]F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be 
introduced to the kiln until the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 40 
[deg]F and the exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, 
the owner or operator would be required to vent the exhaust from the 
kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust temperature falls below 
300 [deg]F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced 
to the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 300 [deg]F and 
the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. When the kiln 
exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the owner or operator 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 product may be introduced to 
the kiln or dryer until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 
400 [deg]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 [deg]F. When there are ceramics in the kiln or 
dryer, the owner or operator 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 the facility's 40 CFR part 70 operating 
permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance 
test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being 
revised.
    Under today's proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, the owner 
or operator would need to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a 
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or 
operator 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 the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of 
section 13 of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can 
demonstrate that the complete spiking procedure has been conducted 
at a similar source; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by 
the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.

    Following the performance test, the owner or operator would 
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using proposed Equation 4 in 
40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the 
owner or operator would sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using 
proposed Equation 5 in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total 
facility HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the proposed 
limitation.
    We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions 
from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns 
using one of the following methods:

     EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions 
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
     EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From 
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, where the test 
results would report the weight of the PM on the filter 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

[[Page 75653]]

roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire 
tunnel kilns.
    We are proposing that the owner or operator measure PM emissions 
from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 
5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    We are also proposing that the owner or operator measure dioxin/
furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor 
tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using EPA 
Method 23, ``Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and 
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7 or any other alternative method that has been approved 
by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 
requirements that are being proposed. Prior to the initial performance 
test, the owner or operator would need to install the CPMS equipment to 
be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limits. 
During the initial test, the owner or operator would use the CPMS to 
establish site-specific operating parameter values that represent the 
operating limits.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance test and record the 
feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test 
runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator would be 
required to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. 
The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-
specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed 
rate values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average 
values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is 
present, the owner or operator would need to submit analyses and 
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance 
and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a 
BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or operator submit analyses 
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA 
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop during the PM 
performance test, the scrubber liquid pH and the chemical addition rate 
(if applicable) during the HF/HCl performance test and the scrubber 
liquid flow rate during both the PM and HF/HCl performance tests. For 
each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or operator 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 the 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 
and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the site-
specific operating limits.
    For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan 
performance tests and determine the 3-hour block average flow rate. The 
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 
activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average 
activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and 
dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-
specific operating limit.
    If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan 
emission limit without an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner 
or operator measure the operating temperature of the 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 the site-specific operating limit.
    For sources with no APCD installed, we are proposing that the owner 
or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using 
proposed Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator 
would use the results from the performance test to determine the 
emissions at the maximum possible process rate. For example, if the 
design capacity of the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the 
production rate during the performance test was 9 tph, then the test 
results represent 90 percent of the maximum potential emissions. If 
there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner or operator would 
need to sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for each kiln to get 
the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent and compare this 
value to the proposed health-based emission limitation for acid gases. 
If the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than 
the proposed limitation, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
determine the maximum process rate for which the total facility maximum 
potential HCl-equivalent remains at or below the proposed limitation. 
If there are multiple kilns, the owner or operator would need to 
determine one or more combinations of maximum process rates that would 
result in a total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent that 
remains at or below the proposed limitation. The maximum process 
rate(s) would become the operating limit(s) for process rate. We are 
also proposing that the owner or operator measure the operating 
temperature of a source during the dioxin/furan performance test and 
determine the 3-hour block average operating temperature. The average 
of the three test runs establishes the site-specific operating limit 
for temperature.

G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?

    Today's Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule proposes that the owner or 
operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies. The owner or operator would have to follow the 
requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M 
plan. The owner or operator would need to operate a CPMS to monitor the 
operating parameters established during the initial performance test as 
described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS would have to collect 
data at least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four 
equally spaced data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more 
than four data values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. 
The owner or operator would have to operate the CPMS at all times when 
the process is operating. The owner or operator 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, the owner or operator 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, the owner or operator 
would need to have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for 
that period.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) health-based emission 
limit by maintaining free-flowing lime

[[Page 75654]]

in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times. If lime is 
found not to be free flowing via the output of a load cell, carrier 
gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop measurement system 
or other system, the owner or operator would have to promptly initiate 
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner 
or operator would also have to maintain the feeder setting (on a per 
ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during 
the performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the proposed rule would provide the option to 
use either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate compliance with 
the PM emission limit.
    For the option of a BLD system, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm 
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner 
or operator 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 
corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the 
alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to 
initiate corrective action.
    For the option of monitoring VE, we are proposing that the owner or 
operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with 
the procedures of EPA Method 22, ``Visual Determination of Fugitive 
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,'' 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7. During the VE observations, the source would 
need to be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the 
owner or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete 
corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 
30 consecutive daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may 
decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly 
for that source. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner 
or operator would have to promptly initiate and complete corrective 
actions according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator would need 
to resume EPA Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until 
no VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the 
owner or operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 
testing to a weekly basis.
    For a stand-alone FF, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable emission limit.
    For a wet scrubber, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
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 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.
    For an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limits by 
continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining 
it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and 
dioxin/furan performance tests.
    If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan 
emission limit without an ACI system, we are proposing that the owner 
or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the 
operating temperature of the 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 the tunnel or roller kiln and ceramic tile spray 
dryer and at or below the average operating temperature during the 
dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer.
    For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are proposing 
that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission 
limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify the presence of water 
flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of 
the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting 
annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if 
applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the 
control equipment.
    For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are proposing that the 
owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by 
conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the 
baffles are in place.
    For a source with no APCD, we are proposing that, to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or operator monitor VE 
as described above; and, to demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/
furan emission limit, the owner or operator 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 performance test for the tunnel or 
roller kiln and ceramic tile spray dryer and at or below the average 
operating temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the 
floor tile press dryer. In addition, if the last calculated total 
facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at or below the 
proposed health-based emission limitation for acid gases, then we are 
proposing that the owner or operator collect and record data 
documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce 
the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator would need to 
maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process rate 
operating limit(s) that would enable the 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 63.9(h) of the 
General Provisions. This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule 
would

[[Page 75655]]

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 manufacturing 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 the owner or operator must keep 
the following records:

     All reports and notifications submitted to comply with 
this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule.
     Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions 
taken.
     Each instance in which the owner or operator did not 
meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating limits).
     Records of production rates.
     Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 
procedures.
     Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 
APCD.
     Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 
conformance.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
     Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 
taken.

    We are also proposing to require that the owner or operator submit 
the following reports and notifications:

     Notifications required by the General Provisions.
     Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days 
after the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
     Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests 
and/or other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days 
before the performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is 
scheduled.
     Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test.
     Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not 
include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstration for the 
work practice standard).
     Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of 
each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective 
action taken.
     Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days 
after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
     Results of each performance test within 60 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?

    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 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 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 first-
fire 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 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 manufacturing 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional clay ceramics process units that do not meet the 
applicability

[[Page 75656]]

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.
    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 manufacturing 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 spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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.
    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 
manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a mass of 
HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion about the 
development of health-based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing rule is provided in section VI.J of this preamble.
    This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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.

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 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 ``chain-on-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.
    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,

[[Page 75657]]

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 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 HAP 
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 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 HAP 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.
    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 datasets (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 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.

                 Table 10--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Dioxins/furans
           Subcategory                     Parameter           Hg \b\  (lb/ton)     PM b c (lb/    (ng/dscm at 7
                                                                                       ton)         percent O2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns..........  Avg. of best performing   7.8 E-05...........           0.054             2.9
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  1.3 E-04...........            0.18             4.6
Floor tile press dryers..........  Avg. of best performing   ...................  ..............           0.078
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.19
Floor tile spray dryers..........  Avg. of best performing   ...................  ..............            0.96
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............              44
Wall tile roller kilns...........  Avg. of best performing   5.0 E-05...........           0.071           0.065
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  2.0 E-04...........            0.20            0.17
Wall tile spray dryers...........  Avg. of best performing   ...................  ..............           0.053
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        0.12 \d\
Tile glaze lines.................  Avg. of best performing   2.0 E-05...........            0.67  ..............
                                    sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  1.6 E-04 \d\.......             1.9  ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel     Avg. of best performing   1.6 E-04...........            0.12            0.81
 kilns.                             sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  2.6 E-04...........            0.33             1.5

[[Page 75658]]

 
Sanitaryware manual glaze          Avg. of best performing   ...................              14  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................              33  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   Avg. of best performing   ...................             5.9  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................              12  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze           Avg. of best performing   ...................             4.4  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   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.

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 Sources \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Dioxins/furans
           Subcategory                     Parameter           Hg \b\ (lb/ton)      PM b c (lb/    (ng/dscm at 7
                                                                                       ton)         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 press dryers..........  Avg. of top performer...  ...................  ..............           0.070
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.19
Floor tile spray dryers..........  Avg. of top performer...  ...................  ..............           0.010
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.17
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..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.12
Tile glaze lines.................  Avg. of top performer...  7.4 E-06...........            0.15  ..............
                                   MACT floor..............  1.6 E-04 \d\.......            0.61  ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel     Avg. of top performer...  6.4 E-05...........           0.092            0.23
 kilns.
                                   MACT floor..............  1.2 E-04...........           0.095            0.37
Sanitaryware manual glaze          Avg. of top performer...  ...................             3.3  ..............
 application.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             3.8  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   Avg. of top performer...  ...................             2.0  ..............
 application.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             3.2  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze           Avg. of top performer...  ...................             1.3  ..............
 application.
                                   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 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;

[[Page 75659]]

     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-the-floor control options). 
When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not 
only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take 
into account costs, energy and non-air 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 beyond-the-floor Hg limit for existing 
sanitaryware tunnel kilns equivalent to the new source MACT floor.
    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-the-floor 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.

       Table 12--Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions and Cost Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond-the-Floor Options (2011 dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Cost (million)            Incremental
                                                                           -------------------------------- HAP  Emissions   Cost Effectiveness  ($/ton
               Subcategory                            Pollutant                                                Reductions            total HAP)
                                                                                Capital         Annual           (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns.................  Hg..............................           $4.14           $3.16           0.044                   $71,800,000
                                          Total non-Hg 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 non-Hg HAP metals.........            7.67            2.70           0.038                    70,600,000
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns....  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            3.91            2.01           0.020                   102,000,000
                                          Dioxins/furans..................            2.98            1.78        3.4 E-08            51,700,000,000,000
Sanitaryware manual glaze application...  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            6.78            2.19            0.24                     9,090,000
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze          Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            1.89           0.900            0.14                     6,420,000
 application.
Sanitaryware robot glaze application....  Total non-Hg 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 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-the-floor limit for any of 
the new sources in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

J. How did the EPA determine whether to set health-based standards for 
existing and new sources?

    In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, we

[[Page 75660]]

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 health-based standards 
for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the same as that 
presented for the proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 
manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV.J of this preamble.
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.
a. Availability of Data To Determine Standard
    Like the BSCP manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 
rule. Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling 
necessary to establish a health-based emission limit for acid 
gases.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 for each facility and also ensure that acute 
exposures will not pose any health concerns.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 health-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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, 
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 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 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

[[Page 75661]]

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 nearby 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 and scientists, 
the emissions levels and locations of nearby other facilities such as 
those in the NEI have not undergone the same level of detailed review. 
Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain 
significant of uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the 
large footprint of clay ceramic facilities 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 
nearby 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:

     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 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 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 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 health-based 
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 HCl-equivalent value to calculate the 
total HCl-equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation 
is provided in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 HCl-equivalent 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.

[[Page 75662]]

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 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 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 either higher or lower than actual emissions, 
depending on when during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Id.
    \61\ See the memorandum entitled ``Rationale for Establishing 
Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns'' in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 manufacturing rule have three or more shuttle kilns each, 
requiring additional tests at each facility.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See the sanitaryware industry communication titled 
``Kohler's response to EPA question regarding options for if and how 
shuttle kilns (periodic kilns) should be addressed,'' in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. 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.''

[[Page 75663]]

    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 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 manufacturing rule includes the following 
specific provisions: \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See the BSCP industry communication titled ``Periodic kiln 
language,'' in the docket for the proposed Clay Ceramics rulemaking.

     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:
    [cir] Calibration of temperature measuring devices
    [cir] Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios
    [cir] Controls that regulate firing cycles
     Each facility would have to develop and maintain 
records required for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document 
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 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 manufacturing rule are not 
appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation. 
Specifically, if there is no throughout in the kiln 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, the owner or operator would be required to vent the 
exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or 
dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 [deg]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 [deg]F and the exhaust is 
being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator 
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 
[deg]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 [deg]F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD. 
When the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the 
owner or operator 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. 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 [deg]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 [deg]F. 
When there are ceramics

[[Page 75664]]

in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator 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 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 manufacturing 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 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for 
demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, the kiln monitoring 
parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 
manufacturing 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.
    In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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.)
    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.

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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 
rule.

[[Page 75665]]

    We are also proposing that the owner or operator 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 the owner or operator 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 
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused 
or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit.
    This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a 
requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is 
discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.
    We request comment on ways that we could streamline the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

    The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing 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 the 
facility is operating in the first 3 years of an operating permit, the 
owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate 
the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. If the 
facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or 
operator will need to incorporate the requirements of this Clay 
Ceramics manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the permit.

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 manufacturing and Clay 
Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.

                           Table 13--Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
                                                                     [2011 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cost (million)                                   Emissions reductions (tpy)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Non-Hg
                 Industry                                                                             HAP
                                             Capital     Annual       HF        HCl        Cl2       metals       Hg         PM       PM2.5       SO2
                                                                                                      \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule are 
expected to total 440 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the 
nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the proposed BSCP 
manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memoranda titled 
``Development of Cost 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 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule, 
which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile 
affected sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. 
We request comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for 
ceramic tile manufacturing even though there currently are no major 
sources.

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 Sources \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Secondary air emissions (tpy)
             Control option              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy impacts    Solid waste
                                                PM             PM2.5            CO              NOX             SO2         (MMBtu/yr)     impacts (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.

[[Page 75666]]

    The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the BSCP 
manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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).
    Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits 
in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule, which means 
that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected 
sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

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 manufacturing 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 regulation is not expected to have significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses, 
please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the BSCP 
manufacturing 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?

    Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of the 
proposed BSCP manufacturing 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 Nox is a precursor to ozone. 
The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co-benefits for this 
proposed rule. For this proposed 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 BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52 
million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount 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 proposed BSCP 
manufacturing rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in 
Table 15 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Emission         Total monetized co-         Total monetized co-
                Pollutant                   reductions        benefits (3 percent         benefits (7 percent
                                               (tpy)               Discount)                   Discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly emitted PM2.5..................             170  45 to 100.................  41 to 92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           PM[bdi2].[bdi5] 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.

[[Page 75667]]

 
\b\ PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models
  assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing
  premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects
  estimates by particle type.

    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 
proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to 
conduct air quality modeling for this proposed 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 p.m. National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) RIA.\68\ Specifically, we 
multiplied the benefit-per-ton 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their 
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality 
because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow 
differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we 
assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the 
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the 
location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels, 
which drive population exposure.
    It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5 
co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function 
for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based 
on the American Cancer Society cohort study \70\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 Mortality and Long-term 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, 
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, 
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \72\ 
documents the association between elevated PM2.5 
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased 
premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the 
EPA's independent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we 
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide 
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological 
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less 
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5 
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these 
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level 
(LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data 
in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population 
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different 
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of 
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There 
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which 
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and 
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the 
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration 
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air 
quality improvements.
    For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not 
available due to time 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 [micro]g/m\3\. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012) 
study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8 
[micro]g/m\3\. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only 
one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline 
incidence rates population and change in air quality. Therefore, 
caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule 
because these results are not consistent with results from rules that 
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,

[[Page 75668]]

we believe the benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a 
reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking 
under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include 
the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 
PM2.5 NAAQS RIA \73\ 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 proposed 
rule and using a benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source 
of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of 
our results to various assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 proposed rule, we include a 
qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for 
the rule.
    The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are 
anticipated to have minor secondary impacts, 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.

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 manufacturing rule. (Note: We 
did not convene a SBAR Panel for the proposed Clay Ceramics 
manufacturing rule because none of the major source facilities subject 
to the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 
rulemaking on their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach 
materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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 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 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

[[Page 75669]]

NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed BSCP 
manufacturing 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 
manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 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 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 rather than comply with the BSCP 
standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to 
the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. For these 67 facilities, the 
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the proposed 
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 three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major 
sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics manufacturing 
rule that we are proposing. For these three facilities, the annual 
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics 
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost 
of $35,653/yr. As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs associated 
with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be 
incurred during this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs 
are estimated to be $44/yr. The total burden for the federal government 
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 
standards) is estimated to be 4.6 hours per year, at a total labor cost 
of $239 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 manufacturing 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 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 manufacturing rule, we estimate an 
average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1,448 labor hours 
per year, at a cost of $76,519/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also 
estimate annualized capital costs of $27,368/yr and annual operating 
and maintenance costs of $21,101/yr over this period, for a total 
annualized cost of $48,469/yr. The average annual burden for the 
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours 
per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in 
2011 dollars.)
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    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 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 action 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 December 18, 2014, a comment to OMB is best assured of 
having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 20, 2015. 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 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.

[[Page 75670]]

    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-for-profit 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 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) and is summarized below.
1. Need for the Rule
    The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission 
standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of 
HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are 
applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the 
maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator's judgment, 
the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or 
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the 
BSCP source category are being 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 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, 36 parent companies 
are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated 
compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to measure the 
magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the 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 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 
manufacturing 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 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing 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 manufacturing rule.
    Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/
furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg and for 
non-Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically

[[Page 75671]]

requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work practice 
standards for non-Hg HAP 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 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 HAP 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 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 
HAP 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 best-performing 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 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 manufacturing rule and $54,100 per year 
for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing 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 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 
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 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 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus

[[Page 75672]]

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 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 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 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.

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: November 20, 2014.
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--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (f)(1), (g)(74) and (84);
0
b. Adding paragraph (g)(95); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (l)(2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 75673]]

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 Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), 
and 63.11224(f).
0
3. Subchapter C 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

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  63.8390  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each existing, new, or reconstructed 
affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.
    (b) For the purposes of this subpart, the affected sources are 
described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2).
    (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 December 18, 2014, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.

Sec.  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 
December 18, 2014 but before [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 [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 [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.

[[Page 75674]]

    (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 [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 December 18, 2014) 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 Sec.  63.8480 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.8480 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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.

[[Page 75675]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
63.8450 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).
    (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures 
consistent with the requirements in Sec.  63.8(d).
    (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8395 and according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.000

[[Page 75676]]

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 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.001

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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.002

Where:
Etotal = HCl-equivalent emissions for total of all kilns 
at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms 
(pounds) per hour
n = number of tunnel kilns at facility

    (iii) Compare this value to the health-based standard in Table 1 to 
this subpart.
    (g) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section and in Table 4 to this subpart.
    (1)(i) If you do not have an APCD installed on your kiln, calculate 
the maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for HF, HCl, and 
Cl2 for each tunnel kiln at your facility using Equation 4 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.003

Where:
Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for 
kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Capi = design capacity for kiln i, megagrams (tons) of 
fired product per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 
for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) 
of fired product
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms 
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per 
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 
micrograms per cubic meter

    (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the 
maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the 
facility using Equation 5 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.004

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 of this section 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.

[[Page 75677]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.005

Where:
Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams 
(tons) per hour
HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 26 
kilograms (57 pounds) per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of fired product
MPiCl2 = mass of Cl2 per unit of production 
for kiln i, kilograms (pounds) of Cl2 per megagram (ton) 
of fired product
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms 
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per 
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 
micrograms per cubic meter

    (iv) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility and the 
total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, determine the combination of maximum process 
rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The maximum 
process rates would become your operating limits for process rate and 
must be included in your OM&M plan.
    (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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (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 (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 (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 Sec.  63.14). Other types of

[[Page 75678]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (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 Sec. Sec.  63.8445(h) and 63.8(f).

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8480(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8445(h)(2) according to the methods specified 
in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as 
described in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8485.
    (d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 
maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance 
exemption according to Sec.  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

[[Page 75679]]

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 Sec.  63.8485.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec.  63.8480  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [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 [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
    (2) In addition to the requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8420(d), you must submit your request for the 
exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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

[[Page 75680]]

included in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption 
developed as specified in Sec.  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 1 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.006

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 were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-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 (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 (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-of-control, 
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 (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 Sec.  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

[[Page 75681]]

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 Sec.  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 (2) of this section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the time of the test, 
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).) Performance test data must be submitted in 
a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 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 Web site, once the XML schema is available. If 
you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted 
is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete 
file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT (or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
Web site 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: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, 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 Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1).

[[Page 75682]]

    (b) As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may keep the 
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.8505  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

Sec.  63.8510  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.8385 and 63.8390, the compliance date requirements in 
Sec.  63.8395, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec.  
63.8405.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

Sec.  63.8515  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  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, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative 
PM loadings.
    Brick and structural clay products (BSCP) manufacturing facility 
means a plant site that manufactures brick (including, but not limited 
to, face brick, structural brick, and brick pavers); clay pipe; roof 
tile; extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional 
clay products. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing 
facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the processed 
materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
    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 [deg]C 
(500 [deg]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.

[[Page 75683]]

    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 Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   You must meet the  Or you must comply
         For each . . .           following emission  with the following
                                     limits . . .            . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel       HF, HCl, and Cl2    Not applicable.
 kilns at facility, including      emissions must
 all process streams.              not exceed 26 kg/
                                   hr (57 lb/hr) HCl
                                   equivalent, under
                                   the health-based
                                   standard, as
                                   determined using
                                   Equations 2 and 3
                                   of Sec.
                                   63.8445..
2. Existing tunnel kiln,          a. PM emissions     i. PM emissions
 including all process streams.    must not exceed     must not exceed
                                   0.082 kg/Mg (0.16   92 mg/dscm (0.040
                                   lb/ton) of fired    gr/dscf) at 7%
                                   product.            O2; or
                                                      ii. Non-Hg HAP
                                                       metals emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       0.0011 kg/hr
                                                       (0.023 lb/hr) of
                                                       fired product.
3. Existing large tunnel kiln     a. Hg emissions     i. Hg emissions
 (design capacity >=10 tph of      must not exceed     must not exceed
 fired product), including all     1.1 E-05 kilogram   29 micrograms per
 process streams.                  per megagram (kg/   dry standard
                                   Mg) (2.2 E-05       cubic meter
                                   pound per ton (lb/  ([mu]g/dscm) at
                                   ton)) of fired      7% O2; or
                                   product.
                                                      ii. Hg emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       1.2 E-04 kg/hr
                                                       (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).
4. Existing small tunnel kiln     a. Hg emissions     i. Hg emissions
 (design capacity Mg      70 [mu]g/dscm at
 process streams.                  (2.0 E-04 lb/ton)   7% O2; or
                                   of fired product.  ii. Hg emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       5.0 E-04 kg/hr
                                                       (0.0011 lb/hr).
5. New or reconstructed tunnel    a. PM emissions     i. PM emissions
 kiln, including all process       must not exceed     must not exceed
 streams.                          0.011 kg/Mg         15 mg/dscm
                                   (0.022 lb/ton) of   (0.0066 gr/dscf)
                                   fired product.      at 7% O2; or
                                                      ii. Non-Hg HAP
                                                       metals emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       0.0014 kg/hr
                                                       (0.0032 lb/hr) of
                                                       fired product.
6. New or reconstructed large     a. Hg emissions     i. Hg emissions
 tunnel kiln, including all        must not exceed     must not exceed
 process streams.                  1.0 E-05 kg/Mg      13 [mu]g/dscm at
                                   (2.0 E-05 lb/ton)   7% O2.
                                   of fired product.
                                                      ii. Hg emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       1.1 E-04 kg/hr
                                                       (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).
7. New or reconstructed small     a. Hg emissions     i. Hg emissions
 tunnel kiln, including all        must not exceed     must not exceed
 process streams.                  9.9 E-05 kg/Mg      70 [mu]g/dscm at
                                   (2.0 E-04 lb/ton)   7% O2.
                                   of fired product.
                                                      ii. Hg emissions
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       5.0 E-04 kg/hr
                                                       (0.0011 lb/hr).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8405, you must meet each operating limit in 
the following table that applies to you.

                              Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For each . . .                                           You must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA..........  a. Maintain the average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-
                                               hour block period at or above the average pressure drop
                                               established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; or, if you
                                               are monitoring the bypass stack damper position, initiate
                                               corrective action within 1 hour after the bypass damper is opened
                                               allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA and complete
                                               corrective action in accordance with your OM&M plan; and
                                              b. Maintain an adequate amount of limestone in the limestone
                                               hopper, storage bin (located at the top of the DLA), and DLA at
                                               all times; maintain the limestone feeder setting (on a per ton of
                                               fired product basis) at or above the level established during the
                                               HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test; and
                                              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/   a. If you use a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective
 FF.                                           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

[[Page 75684]]

 
                                              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 Sec.   63.8445(g)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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    a. Minimize HAP emissions..  i. Develop and use a designed firing time and
 periodic kiln.                                                    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 Sec.
                                                                   63.8490.
2. Existing, new or reconstructed    a. Minimize dioxin/furan     i. Maintain and inspect the burners and
 tunnel kiln.                         emissions.                   associated combustion controls (as
                                                                   applicable); and
                                                                  ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize
                                                                   combustion.
3. Existing, new or reconstructed    a. Minimize HAP emissions..  i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln until
 tunnel kiln during periods of                                     the kiln exhaust temperature reaches 204
 startup.                                                          [deg]C (400 [deg]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 [deg]C (400 [deg]F).
4. Existing, new or reconstructed    a. Minimize HAP emissions..  i. Do not put any bricks into the kiln once
 tunnel kiln during periods of                                     the kiln exhaust temperature falls to 149
 shutdown.                                                         [deg]C (300 [deg]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 [deg]C (300 [deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
           For each . . .                You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln.....................  a. Select locations of  Method 1 or 1A of 40    Sampling sites must be
                                      sampling ports and      CFR part 60, appendix   located at the outlet of
                                      the number of           A-1.                    the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.

[[Page 75685]]

 
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A-1.  2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           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          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 3A or 3B
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A-2.  of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      analysis.                                       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 Sec.
                                                                                      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     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A-3.
                                      gas.
                                     e. Measure HF, HCl and  Method 26A of 40 CFR    You may use Method 26 of 40
                                      Cl2 emissions.          part 60, appendix A-    CFR part 60, appendix A-8,
                                                              8; or                   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 Sec.
                                                                                      63.14) may be used as an
                                                                                      alternative to Methods 26
                                                                                      and 26A.
                                                             Method 320 of appendix  When using Method 320 of
                                                              A of this part.         appendix A of this part,
                                                                                      you must follow the
                                                                                      analyte spiking procedures
                                                                                      of section 13 of Method
                                                                                      320 of appendix A of this
                                                                                      part, unless you can
                                                                                      demonstrate that the
                                                                                      complete spiking procedure
                                                                                      has been conducted at a
                                                                                      similar source. ASTM D6348-
                                                                                      03 (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                                      (incorporated by
                                                                                      reference, see Sec.
                                                                                      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           i. For PM only: Method
                                      emissions or non-Hg     5 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      HAP metals.             appendix A-3; or
                                                             ii. For PM or non-Hg    To determine PM, weigh the
                                                              HAP metals: Method 29   filter and report the
                                                              of 40 CFR part 60,      results as PM filterable.
                                                              appendix A-8.
                                     g. Measure Hg           Method 29 of 40 CFR     ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A-8.  2008) (incorporated by
                                                                                      reference, see Sec.
                                                                                      63.14) may be used as an
                                                                                      alternative to Method 29
                                                                                      (portion for Hg only).
2. Tunnel kiln with no add-on        Establish the           HCl-equivalent limit    Using the procedures in
 control.                             operating limit(s)      in Table 1 to this      Sec.   63.8445(g)(1), you
                                      for kiln process rate   subpart and emissions   must determine the maximum
                                      if the total facility   and production data     process rate(s) for your
                                      maximum potential HCl-  from the HF/HCl/Cl2     kiln(s) that would ensure
                                      equivalent emissions    performance test.       total facility maximum
                                      are greater than the                            potential HCl-equivalent
                                      HCl-equivalent limit                            emissions remain at or
                                      in Table 1 to this                              below the HCl-equivalent
                                      subpart.                                        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     Determine the           Production data         You must measure and record
 with PM and/or Hg production-based   production rate         collected during the    the production rate, on a
 emission limits.                     during each PM/Hg       PM/Hg performance       fired-product basis, of
                                      test run in order to    tests (e.g., no. of     the affected source for
                                      determine compliance    pushes per hour, no.    each of the three test
                                      with PM and/or Hg       of bricks per kiln      runs.
                                      production-based        car, weight of a
                                      emission limits.        typical fired brick).
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA.  a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the pressure drop
                                      the average pressure    device during the HF/   across the DLA, determine
                                      drop across the DLA.    HCl/Cl2 performance     and record the block
                                                              test.                   average pressure drop
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      pressure drop measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      pressure drop operating
                                                                                      limit.

[[Page 75686]]

 
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the           You must ensure that you
                                      operating limit for     limestone feeder        maintain an adequate
                                      the limestone feeder    during the HF/HCl/Cl2   amount of limestone in the
                                      setting.                performance test.       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  Records of limestone
                                      and grade of            purchase.
                                      limestone used.
5. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF  Establish the           Data from the lime      For continuous lime
 or DLS/FF.                           operating limit for     feeder during the HF/   injection systems, you
                                      the lime feeder         HCl/Cl2 performance     must ensure that lime in
                                      setting.                test.                   the feed hopper or silo
                                                                                      and to the APCD is free-
                                                                                      flowing at all times
                                                                                      during the performance
                                                                                      test and record the feeder
                                                                                      setting, on a per ton of
                                                                                      fired product basis, for
                                                                                      the three test runs. If
                                                                                      the feed rate setting
                                                                                      varies during the three
                                                                                      test runs, determine and
                                                                                      record the average feed
                                                                                      rate from the three test
                                                                                      runs. The average of the
                                                                                      three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific feed rate
                                                                                      operating limit.
6. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS..  a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the PM/   pressure drop, determine
                                      pressure drop.          non-Hg HAP metals       and record the block
                                                              performance test.       average pressure drop
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      pressure drop measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      pressure drop operating
                                                                                      limit.
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the pH        You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     measurement device      measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    during the              liquid pH, determine and
                                      liquid pH.              performance HF/HCl/     record the block average
                                                              Cl2 performance test.   pH values for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded pH measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      liquid pH operating limit.
                                     c. Establish the        Data from the flow      You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     rate measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the HF/   liquid flow rate,
                                      liquid flow rate.       HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg   determine and record the
                                                              HAP metals              block average flow rate
                                                              performance tests.      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      flow rate measurements for
                                                                                      the three test runs. The
                                                                                      average of the three test
                                                                                      runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      liquid flow rate operating
                                                                                      level. If different
                                                                                      average wet scrubber
                                                                                      liquid flow rate values
                                                                                      are measured during the HF/
                                                                                      HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP
                                                                                      metals tests, the highest
                                                                                      of the average values
                                                                                      become your site-specific
                                                                                      operating limit.
7. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS    Establish the           Data from the chemical  You must continuously
 that includes chemical addition to   operating limit for     feed rate measurement   measure the scrubber
 the water.                           the average scrubber    device during the HF/   chemical feed rate,
                                      chemical feed rate.     HCl/Cl2 performance     determine and record the
                                                              test.                   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 site-specific
                                                                                      chemical addition rate
                                                                                      operating limit.
8. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI  Establish the           Data from the carbon    You must measure the carbon
 system.                              operating limit for     flow rate measurement   flow rate during each test
                                      the average carbon      conducted during the    run, determine and record
                                      flow rate.              Hg performance test.    the block average carbon
                                                                                      flow rate values for the
                                                                                      three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded carbon flow rate
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific activated
                                                                                      carbon flow rate operating
                                                                                      limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8455, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
with each emission limitation and work practice standard that applies 
to you according to the following table.

[[Page 75687]]

  Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   You have demonstrated initial compliance if .
           For each . . .              For the following . . .                          . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel kilns    a. HF, HCl, and Cl2          i. You measure HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions for
 at the facility, including all       emissions must not exceed    each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40 CFR
 process streams                      26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl      part 60, appendix A-8 or its alternative,
                                      equivalent.                  ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated
                                                                   by reference, see Sec.   63.14); or Method
                                                                   320 of appendix A of this part or its
                                                                   alternative, ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                   (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                                                   63.14); and
                                                                  ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions
                                                                   for each kiln using Equation 2 to Sec.
                                                                   63.8445; and
                                                                  iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values for all
                                                                   kilns at the facility using Equation 3 of
                                                                   Sec.   63.8445; and
                                                                  iv. The facility total HCl-equivalent does not
                                                                   exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr).
2. Existing tunnel kiln, including   a. PM emissions must not     i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of
 all process streams.                 exceed 0.082 kg/Mg (0.16     40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3 or Method 29 of
                                      lb/ton) of fired product     40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, over the period
                                      or 92 mg/dscm (0.040 gr/     of the initial performance test, according to
                                      dscf) at 7% O2; or           the calculations in Sec.   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         i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured
                                      emissions must not exceed    using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                      0.011 kg/hr (0.023 lb/hr).   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        a. Hg emissions must not     i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29
 (design capacity >=10 tph of fired   exceed 1.1 E-05 kg/Mg (2.2   of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or its
 product), including all process      E-05 lb/ton) of fired        alternative, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
 streams.                             product or 29 [micro]g/      (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                      dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E-04    63.14), over the period of the initial
                                      kg/hr (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).      performance test, do not exceed 1.1 E-05 kg/
                                                                   Mg (2.2 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 29
                                                                   [micro]g/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 [micro]g/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.2 E-
                                                                   04 kg/hr (2.7 E-04 lb/hr).
4. Existing small tunnel kiln        a. Hg emissions must not     i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29
 (design capacity Mg (2.0   of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or its
 product), including all process      E-04 lb/ton) of fired        alternative, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
 streams.                             product or 70 [micro]g/      (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                      dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04    63.14), over the period of the initial
                                      kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).        performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/
                                                                   Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70
                                                                   [micro]g/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 [micro]g/dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-
                                                                   04 kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).
5. New or reconstructed tunnel       a. PM emissions must not     i. The PM emissions measured using Method 5 of
 kiln, including all process          exceed 0.011 kg/Mg (0.022    40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, over the period
 streams                              lb/ton) of fired product     of the initial performance test, according to
                                      or 15 mg/dscm at 7% O2; or   the calculations in Sec.   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         i. The non-Hg HAP metals emissions measured
                                      emissions must not exceed    using Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                      0.0014 kg/hr (0.0032 lb/     8, over the period of the initial performance
                                      hr).                         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).
6. New or reconstructed large        a. Hg emissions must not     i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29
 tunnel kiln, including all process   exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/Mg (2.0   of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or its
 streams.                             E-05 lb/ton) of fired        alternative, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
                                      product or 13 [micro]g/      (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                      dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 E-04    63.14), over the period of the initial
                                      kg/hr (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).      performance test, do not exceed 1.0 E-05 kg/
                                                                   Mg (2.0 E-05 lb/ton) of fired product or 13
                                                                   [micro]g/dscm at 7% O2; and

[[Page 75688]]

 
                                                                  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 [micro]g/dscm at 7% O2 or 1.1 E-
                                                                   04 kg/hr (2.4 E-04 lb/hr).
7. New or reconstructed small        a. Hg emissions must not     i. The Hg emissions measured using Method 29
 tunnel kiln, including all process   exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/Mg (2.0   of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or its
 streams.                             E-04 lb/ton) of fired        alternative, ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008)
                                      product or 70 [micro]g/      (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                      dscm at 7% O2 or 5.0 E-04    63.14), over the period of the initial
                                      kg/hr (0.0011 lb/hr).        performance test, do not exceed 9.9 E-05 kg/
                                                                   Mg (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of fired product or 70
                                                                   [micro]g/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 [micro]g/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
                                                                  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    a. Minimize dioxin/furan     i. Conduct initial inspection of the burners
 tunnel kiln.                         emissions.                   and associated combustion controls (as
                                                                   applicable); and
                                                                  ii. Tune the specific burner type to optimize
                                                                   combustion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   You must demonstrate continuous compliance by
           For each . . .              For the following . . .                         . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DLA.  a. Each emission limit in    i. Collecting the DLA pressure drop data
                                      Table 1 to this subpart      according to Sec.   63.8450(a); reducing the
                                      and each operating limit     DLA pressure drop data to 3-hour block
                                      in Item 1 of Table 2 to      averages according to Sec.   63.8450(a);
                                      this subpart for tunnel      maintaining the average pressure drop across
                                      kilns equipped with a DLA.   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
                                                                  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 Sec.
                                                                   63.8470(e) using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                                                   appendix A-7; maintaining no VE from the DLA
                                                                   stack.

[[Page 75689]]

 
2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a DIFF  a. Each emission limit in    i. If you use a bag leak detection system,
 or DLS/FF.                           Table 1 to this subpart      initiating corrective action within 1 hour of
                                      and each operating limit     a bag leak detection system alarm and
                                      in Item 2 of Table 2 to      completing corrective actions in accordance
                                      this subpart for tunnel      with your OM&M plan; operating and
                                      kilns equipped with DIFF     maintaining the fabric filter such that the
                                      or DLS/FF.                   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 Sec.   63.8470(e)
                                                                   using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                                                   7; and maintaining no VE from the DIFF or DLS/
                                                                   FF stack; and
                                                                  ii. Verifying that lime is free-flowing via a
                                                                   load cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator,
                                                                   carrier gas pressure drop measurement system,
                                                                   or other system; recording all monitor or
                                                                   sensor output, and if lime is found not to be
                                                                   free flowing, promptly initiating and
                                                                   completing corrective actions in accordance
                                                                   with your OM&M plan; recording the feeder
                                                                   setting once during each shift of operation
                                                                   to verify that the feeder setting is being
                                                                   maintained at or above the level established
                                                                   during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test.
3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS..  a. Each emission limit in    i. Collecting the scrubber pressure drop data
                                      Table 1 to this subpart      according to Sec.   63.8450(a); reducing the
                                      and each operating limit     scrubber pressure drop data to 3-hour block
                                      in Item 3 of Table 2 to      averages according to Sec.   63.8450(a);
                                      this subpart for tunnel      maintaining the average scrubber pressure
                                      kilns equipped with WS.      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 Sec.   63.8450(a); reducing the
                                                                   scrubber liquid pH data to 3-hour block
                                                                   averages according to Sec.   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 Sec.   63.8450(a); reducing
                                                                   the scrubber liquid flow rate data to 3-hour
                                                                   block averages according to Sec.
                                                                   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 Sec.   63.8450(a);
                                                                   reducing the scrubber chemical feed rate data
                                                                   to 3-hour block averages according to Sec.
                                                                   63.8450(a); maintaining the average scrubber
                                                                   chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
                                                                   period at or above the average scrubber
                                                                   chemical feed rate established during the HF/
                                                                   HCl/Cl2 performance test.
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an ACI  Each emission limit in       Collecting the carbon flow rate data according
 system.                              Table 1 to this subpart      to Sec.   63.8450(a); reducing the carbon
                                      and each operating limit     flow rate data to 3-hour block averages
                                      in Item 4 of Table 2 to      according to Sec.   63.8450(a); maintaining
                                      this subpart for tunnel      the average carbon flow rate for each 3-hour
                                      kilns equipped with ACI      block period at or above the average carbon
                                      system.                      flow rate established during the Hg
                                                                   performance test.
5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on        a. Each emission limit in    i. Performing VE observations of the stack at
 contro.                              Table 1 to this subpart      the frequency specified in Sec.   63.8470(e)
                                      and each operating limit     using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                      in Item 5 of Table 2 to      7; and maintaining no VE from the stack.
                                      this subpart for tunnel     ii. If your last calculated total facility
                                      kilns with no add-on         maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at
                                      control.                     or below the health-based standard in Table 1
                                                                   to this subpart, collecting the kiln process
                                                                   rate data according to Sec.   63.8450(a);
                                                                   reducing the kiln process rate data to 3-hour
                                                                   block averages according to Sec.
                                                                   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 Sec.   63.8445(g)(1).
6. Periodic kil....................  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

[[Page 75690]]

 
                                                                  iii. Following maintenance procedures for each
                                                                   kiln that, at a minimum, specify the
                                                                   frequency of inspection and maintenance of
                                                                   temperature monitoring devices, controls that
                                                                   regulate air-to-fuel ratios, and controls
                                                                   that regulate firing cycles; and
                                                                  iv. Developing and maintaining records for
                                                                   each periodic kiln, as specified in Sec.
                                                                   63.8490.
7. Tunnel kil......................  a. Minimize dioxin/furan     i. Maintaining and inspecting the burners and
                                      emission.                    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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      You must submit the report
       You must submit . . .                  The report must contain . . .                      . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report.............  a. If there are no deviations from any emission  Semiannually according to
                                      limitations (emission limits, operating          the requirements in Sec.
                                      limits) that apply to you, a statement that       63.8485(b).
                                      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.
                                     b. If you have a deviation from any emission     Semiannually according to
                                      limitation (emission limit, operating limit)     the requirements in Sec.
                                      during the reporting period, the report must      63.8485(b).
                                      contain the information in Sec.   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 Sec.   63.8485(e).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8505, you must comply with the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to subpart
              Citation                       Subject              Brief description               JJJJJ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1........................  Applicability.........  Initial applicability        Yes.
                                                              determination;
                                                              applicability after
                                                              standard established;
                                                              permit requirements;
                                                              extensions, notifications.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Definitions for part 63      Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Units and abbreviations for  Yes.
                                      Abbreviations.          part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited Activities.  Compliance date;             Yes.
                                                              circumvention;
                                                              severability.
Sec.   63.5........................  Construction/           Applicability;               Yes.
                                      Reconstruction.         applications; approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Applicability.........  General Provisions (GP)      Yes.
                                                              apply unless compliance
                                                              extension; GP apply to
                                                              area sources that become
                                                              major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (4)......  Compliance Dates for    Standards apply at           Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   effective date; 3 years
                                      sources.                after effective date; upon
                                                              startup; 10 years after
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction commences
                                                              for section 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..................  Notification..........  Must notify if commenced     Yes.
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction after
                                                              proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   major must comply with
                                      Area Sources That       major source standards
                                      Become Major.           immediately upon becoming
                                                              major, regardless of
                                                              whether required to comply
                                                              when they were area
                                                              sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2)..........  Compliance Dates for    Comply according to date in  Yes.
                                      Existing Sources.       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.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4)..........  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.

[[Page 75691]]

 
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                      Existing Area Sources   major must comply with
                                      That Become Major.      major source standards by
                                                              date indicated in subpart
                                                              or by equivalent time
                                                              period (for example, 3
                                                              years).
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  Operation &             General Duty to minimize     No. See Sec.
                                      Maintenance.            emissions.                   63.8420(b) for
                                                                                           general duty
                                                                                           requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  Operation &             Requirement to correct       No.
                                      Maintenance.            malfunctions ASAP.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Operation &             Operation and maintenance    Yes.
                                      Maintenance.            requirements enforceable
                                                              independent of emissions
                                                              limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Requirement for startup,     No.
                                      Malfunction Plan        shutdown, and malfunction
                                      (SSMP).                 (SSM) and SSMP; content of
                                                              SSMP.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  Compliance Except       You must comply with         No.
                                      During SSM.             emission standards at all
                                                              times except during SSM.
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)..........  Methods for             Compliance based on          Yes.
                                      Determining             performance test,
                                      Compliance.             operation and maintenance
                                                              plans, records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g).....................  Alternative Standard..  Procedures for getting an    Yes.
                                                              alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Opacity/VE Standards..  Requirements for opacity     No, not applicable.
                                                              and VE standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).....................  Compliance Extension..  Procedures and criteria for  Yes.
                                                              Administrator to grant
                                                              compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Presidential            President may exempt source  Yes.
                                      Compliance Exemption.   category.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1) and (2)..........  Performance Test Dates  Dates for conducting         Yes.
                                                              initial performance
                                                              testing and other
                                                              compliance demonstrations
                                                              for emission limits and
                                                              work practice standards;
                                                              must conduct 180 days
                                                              after first subject to
                                                              rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..................  Section 114 Authority.  Administrator may require a  Yes.
                                                              performance test under CAA
                                                              section 114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4)..................  Notification of Delay   Must notify Administrator    Yes.
                                      in Performance          of delay in performance
                                      Testing Due To Force    testing due to force
                                      Majeure.                majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..................  Notification of         Must notify Administrator    Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       60 days before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..................  Notification of         Must notify Administrator 5  Yes.
                                      Rescheduling.           days before scheduled date
                                                              of rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality Assurance(QA)/  Requirements; test plan      Yes.
                                      Test Plan.              approval procedures;
                                                              performance audit
                                                              requirements; internal and
                                                              external QA procedures for
                                                              testing.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing Facilities....  Requirements for testing     Yes.
                                                              facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Conditions for          Cannot conduct performance   No, Sec.   63.8445
                                      Conducting              tests during SSM; not a      specifies
                                      Performance Tests.      violation to exceed          requirements.
                                                              standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2) and (3)..........  Conditions for          Must conduct according to    Yes.
                                      Conducting              subpart and EPA test
                                      Performance Tests.      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.
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..................  Testing under Section   Administrator's authority    Yes.
                                      114.                    to require testing under
                                                              section 114 of the Act.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative Test        Procedures by which          Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator can grant
                                                              approval to use an
                                                              alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Performance Test Data   Must include raw data in     Yes.
                                      Analysis.               performance test report;
                                                              must submit performance
                                                              test data 60 days after
                                                              end of test with the
                                                              notification of compliance
                                                              status.
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of Tests.......  Procedures for               Yes.
                                                              Administrator to waive
                                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..................  Applicability of        Subject to all monitoring    Yes.
                                      Monitoring              requirements in subpart.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..................  Performance             Performance Specifications   Yes.
                                      Specifications.         in appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                              part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Monitoring with Flares  Requirements for flares in   No, not applicable.
                                                              Sec.   63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..................  Monitoring............  Must conduct monitoring      Yes.
                                                              according to standard
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2) and (3)..........  Multiple Effluents and  Specific requirements for    Yes.
                                      Multiple Monitoring     installing and reporting
                                      Systems.                on monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..................  Monitoring System       Maintenance consistent with  Yes.
                                      Operation and           good air pollution control
                                      Maintenance.            practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Routine and             Reporting requirements for   No.
                                      Predictable SSM.        SSM when action is
                                                              described in SSMP.

[[Page 75692]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  SSM not in SSMP.......  Reporting requirements for   Yes.
                                                              SSM when action is not
                                                              described in SSMP.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Compliance with         How Administrator            No.
                                      Operation and           determines if source
                                      Maintenance             complying with operation
                                      Requirements.           and maintenance
                                                              requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3)..........  Monitoring System       Must install to get          Yes.
                                      Installation.           representative emission
                                                              and parameter measurements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  CMS Requirements......  Requirements for CMS.......  No, Sec.   63.8450
                                                                                           specifies
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  Continuous Opacity      COMS minimum procedures....  No, not applicable.
                                      Monitoring System
                                      (COMS) Minimum
                                      Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..................  CMS Requirements......  Zero and high level          Yes.
                                                              calibration check
                                                              requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8)..........  CMS Requirements......  Out-of-control periods.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d).....................  CMS Quality Control...  Requirements for CMS         Yes.
                                                              quality control.
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS Performance         Requirements for CMS         Yes.
                                      Evaluation.             performance evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (5)......  Alternative Monitoring  Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator to approve
                                                              alternative monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to          Procedures for               No, not applicable.
                                      Relative Accuracy       Administrator to approve
                                      Test.                   alternative relative
                                                              accuracy test for
                                                              continuous emissions
                                                              monitoring systems (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(g).....................  Data Reduction........  COMS and CEMS data           No, not applicable.
                                                              reduction requirements.
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Notification            Applicability; State         Yes.
                                      Requirements.           delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b).....................  Initial Notifications.  Requirements for initial     Yes.
                                                              notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for Compliance  Can request if cannot        Yes.
                                      Extension.              comply by date or if
                                                              installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  Notification of         For sources that commence    Yes.
                                      Special Compliance      construction between
                                      Requirements for New    proposal and promulgation
                                      Source.                 and want to comply 3 years
                                                              after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of         Notify Administrator 60      Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of VE/     Notify Administrator 30      No, not applicable.
                                      Opacity Test.           days prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..................  Additional              Notification of performance  Yes
                                      Notifications When      evaluation.
                                      Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2) and (3)..........  Additional              Notification of COMS data    No, not applicable.
                                      Notifications When      use; notification that
                                      Using CMS.              relative accuracy
                                                              alternative criterion were
                                                              exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h).....................  Notification of         Contents; submittal          Yes.
                                      Compliance Status.      requirements.
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of           Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Submittal Deadlines.    Administrator to approve
                                                              change in when
                                                              notifications must be
                                                              submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in Previous      Must submit within 15 days   Yes.
                                      Information.            after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Recordkeeping/          Applicability; general       Yes.
                                      Reporting.              information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  General Recordkeeping   General requirements.......  Yes.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  Records Related to SSM  Recordkeeping of occurrence  No.
                                                              and duration of startups
                                                              and shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  Records Related to SSM  Recordkeeping of failures    No. See Sec.
                                                              to meet a standard.          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.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Records Related to SSM  Maintenance records........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).....  Records Related to SSM  Actions taken to minimize    No.
                                                              emissions during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) through       CMS Records...........  Records when CMS is          Yes.
 (xii) and (xiv).                                             malfunctioning,
                                                              inoperative or out-of-
                                                              control.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  Records...............  Records when using           No, not applicable.
                                                              alternative to relative
                                                              accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Records...............  Applicability                Yes.
                                                              Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1) through (15)....  Records...............  Additional records for CMS.  No, Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                           63.8425 and 63.8490
                                                                                           specify requirements.

[[Page 75693]]

 
Sec.   63.10(d)(1) and (2).........  General Reporting       Requirements for reporting;  Yes.
                                      Requirements.           performance test results
                                                              reporting.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting Opacity or    Requirements for reporting   No, not applicable.
                                      VE Observations.        opacity and VE.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress Reports......  Must submit progress         Yes.
                                                              reports on schedule if
                                                              under compliance extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).................  SSM Reports...........  Contents and submission....  No. See Sec.
                                                                                           63.8485(f) for
                                                                                           malfunction reporting
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) through (3).....  Additional CMS Reports  Requirements for CMS         No, Sec.  Sec.
                                                              reporting.                   63.8425 and 63.8485
                                                                                           specify requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS data...  Requirements for reporting   No, not applicable.
                                                              COMS data with performance
                                                              test data.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Waiver for              Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Recordkeeping/          Administrator to waive.
                                      Reporting.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Flares................  Requirement for flares.....  No, not applicable.
Sec.   63.12.......................  Delegation............  State authority to enforce   Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses.............  Addresses for reports,       Yes.
                                                              notifications, requests.
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporation by        Materials incorporated by    Yes.
                                      Reference.              reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of         Information availability;    Yes.
                                      Information.            confidential information.
Sec.   63.16.......................  Performance Track       Requirements for             Yes.
                                      Provisions.             Performance Track member
                                                              facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. Subchapter C is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as 
follows:

Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
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

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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

[[Page 75694]]

tons) or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 
megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

Sec.  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 December 18, 2014, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (f) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.

Sec.  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 
December 18, 2014 but before [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 [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 [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 [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 December 18, 2014) 
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 Sec.  63.8630 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.8630 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

Sec.  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.

Sec.  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

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8575.
    (d) If you own or operate an affected source that is subject to the 
emission

[[Page 75695]]

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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
63.8600 and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (7), and (8).
    (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures 
consistent with the requirements in Sec.  63.8(d).
    (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8545 and according to the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7(a)(2).

Sec.  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

[[Page 75696]]

parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.007

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 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.008

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

    (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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.009

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 of this 
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.010

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

[[Page 75697]]

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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.011

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 HCl-equivalent 
emissions for HF and HCl for each tunnel or roller kiln at your 
facility using Equation 6 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.012

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 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.013

Where:

Emax total = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 
for total of all kilns at facility, kilograms (pounds) per hour
Emax i = maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions for 
kiln i, kilograms (pounds) per hour
n = number of kilns at facility

    (iii) If you have a single tunnel or roller kiln at your facility 
and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the maximum process rate 
for the kiln using Equation 8 that would ensure the total facility 
maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-
equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating 
limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.014

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
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 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 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

[[Page 75698]]

of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
meet the requirements in Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (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 (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 75699]]

reference, see Sec.  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 (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 (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 Sec. Sec.  63.8595(h) and 63.8(f).

Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8630(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8595(h)(2) according to the methods specified 
in your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as 
described in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8635.
    (d) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 
maintenance covered by an approved routine control device maintenance 
exemption according to Sec.  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 Sec.  63.8635.

Notifications, Reports, and Records

Sec.  63.8630  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [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 [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source or affected source described in Sec.  
63.8540(d) or Sec.  63.8540(e) on or after [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register],

[[Page 75700]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(d)(2).
    (2) In addition to the requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 1 of this section.

[[Page 75701]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP18DE14.015

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

    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that 
apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there 
were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice 
standards during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-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 (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 (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-of-control, 
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 (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 75702]]

    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the time of the test, 
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp).) Performance test data must be submitted in 
a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. 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 Web site, once the XML schema is available. If 
you claim that some of the performance test information being submitted 
is confidential business information (CBI), you must submit a complete 
file generated through the use of the EPA's ERT (or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
Web site 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: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, 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 Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  63.13.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) Records of performance tests as required in Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may keep the 
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information

Sec.  63.8655  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.

[[Page 75703]]

Sec.  63.8660  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if 
implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated to your 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in 
Sec.  63.8545, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec.  
63.8555.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

Sec.  63.8665  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  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, light-transmittance, or other effects to monitor relative 
PM loadings.
    Clay ceramics manufacturing facility means a plant site that 
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, 
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing 
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives, form 
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes, and dry and 
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and 
sanitaryware products.
    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 Sec.  
63.8595
    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 free-flowing 
powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and 
compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used 
at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and 
starting the production process.
    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.

[[Page 75704]]

    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 Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    You must meet the following emission
          For each . . .                        limits . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel or      HF and HCl emissions must not exceed
 roller kilns at facility.           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 of Sec.
                                     63.8595.
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 E-04 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 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.16 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
4. Existing first-fire              a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17
 sanitaryware tunnel kiln.           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.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
5. Existing tile glaze line with    a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93
 glaze spraying.                     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.
6. Existing sanitaryware manual     PM emissions must not exceed 16 kg/
 glaze application.                  Mg (33 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
7. Existing sanitaryware spray      PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/
 machine glaze application.          Mg (12 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
8. Existing sanitaryware robot      PM emissions must not exceed 4.4 kg/
 glaze application.                  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       Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 dryer.                              exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
12. New or reconstructed floor      a. PM emissions must not exceed
 tile roller kiln.                   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.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 1.5 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
13. New or reconstructed wall tile  a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.15
 roller kiln.                        kg/Mg (0.27 lb/ton) of fired
                                     product.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.5
                                     E-06 kg/Mg (3.1 E-06 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.160.23 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
14. New or reconstructed first-     a. PM emissions must not exceed
 fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln.      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.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.37 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
15. New or reconstructed tile       a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.30
 glaze line with glaze spraying.     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.
16. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 1.9 kg/
 sanitaryware manual glaze           Mg (3.8 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
 application.
17. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/
 sanitaryware spray machine glaze    Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
 application.
18. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 1.1 kg/
 sanitaryware robot glaze            Mg (2.2 lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.
 application.
19. New or reconstructed floor      Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 tile spray dryer.                   exceed 0.17 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
20. New or reconstructed wall tile  Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 spray dryer.                        exceed 0.12 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
21. New or reconstructed floor      Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 tile press dryer.                   exceed 0.19 ng/dscm at 7% O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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.

[[Page 75705]]

 
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     If you intend to comply with the dioxin/furan
 emission limit without an ACI system.                              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 add-on 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 Sec.   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 Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            According to one of the following
               For each . . .                      You must . . .                  requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing, new, or reconstructed           a. Minimize HAP emissions  i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as
 sanitaryware shuttle kiln.                                              the kiln fuel, except during periods of
                                                                         natural gas curtailment or supply
                                                                         interruption, as defined in Sec.
                                                                         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 Sec.   63.8640.
2. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or    a. Minimize HAP emissions  i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln
 dryer during periods of startup.                                        or dryer until the kiln or dryer
                                                                         exhaust temperature reaches 204 [deg]C
                                                                         (400 [deg]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 [deg]C (400 [deg]F).

[[Page 75706]]

 
3. Existing, new or reconstructed kiln or    a. Minimize HAP emissions  i. Do not put any ceramics into the kiln
 dryer during periods of shutdown.                                       or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust
                                                                         temperature falls to 149 [deg]C (300
                                                                         [deg]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 [deg]C (300 [deg]F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
           For each . . .                You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln...........  a. Select locations of  Method 1 or 1A of 40    Sampling sites must be
                                      sampling ports and      CFR part 60, appendix   located at the outlet of
                                      the number of           A-1.                    the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A-1.  2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           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          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 3A or 3B
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A-2.  of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      analysis.                                       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 Sec.
                                                                                      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     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A-3.
                                      gas.
                                     e. Measure HF and HCl   i. Method 26A of 40     You may use Method 26 of 40
                                      emissions.              CFR part 60, appendix   CFR part 60, appendix A-8,
                                                              A-8; or.                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 Sec.
                                                                                      63.14) may be used as an
                                                                                      alternative to Methods 26
                                                                                      and 26A.
                                                             ii. Method 320 of       When using Method 320 of
                                                              appendix A of this      appendix A of this part,
                                                              part.                   you must follow the
                                                                                      analyte spiking procedures
                                                                                      of section 13 of Method
                                                                                      320 of appendix A of this
                                                                                      part, unless you can
                                                                                      demonstrate that the
                                                                                      complete spiking procedure
                                                                                      has been conducted at a
                                                                                      similar source. ASTM D6348-
                                                                                      03 (Reapproved 2010)
                                                                                      (incorporated by
                                                                                      reference, see Sec.
                                                                                      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           i. Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A-
                                                              3; or.
                                                             ii. Method 29 of 40     To determine PM, weigh the
                                                              CFR part 60, appendix   filter and report the
                                                              A-8.                    results as PM filterable
                                     g. Measure Hg           Method 29 of 40 CFR     ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A-8.  2008) (incorporated by
                                                                                      reference, see Sec.
                                                                                      63.14) may be used as an
                                                                                      alternative to Method 29
                                                                                      (portion for Hg only).
                                     h. Measure dioxin/      Method 23 of 40 CFR
                                      furan emissions.        part 60, appendix A-7.
2. Glaze spray operation...........  a. Select locations of  Method 1 or 1A of 40    Sampling sites must be
                                      sampling ports and      CFR part 60, appendix   located at the outlet of
                                      the number of           A-1.                    the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A-1.  2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           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.

[[Page 75707]]

 
                                     c. Conduct gas          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 3A or 3B
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A-2.  of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      analysis.                                       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 Sec.
                                                                                      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     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A-3.
                                      gas.
                                     e. Measure PM           Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A-3.
                                     f. Measure Hg           Method 29 of 40 CFR     ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                      emissions (tile glaze   part 60, appendix A-8.  2008) (incorporated by
                                      spray operations                                reference, see Sec.
                                      only).                                          63.14) may be used as an
                                                                                      alternative to Method 29
                                                                                      (portion for Hg only).
3. Spray dryer or floor tile press   a. Select locations of  Method 1 or 1A of 40    Sampling sites must be
 dryer.                               sampling ports and      CFR part 60, appendix   located at the outlet of
                                      the number of           A-1.                    the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A-1.  2D, or 2F of 40 CFR part
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           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          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 3A or 3B
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A-2.  of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      analysis.                                       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 Sec.
                                                                                      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     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A-3.
                                      gas.
                                     e. Measure dioxin/      Method 23 of 40 CFR
                                      furan emissions.        part 60, appendix A-7.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln with no     a. Establish the        HCl-equivalent limit    Using the procedures in
 add-on control.                      operating limit(s)      in Table 1 to this      Sec.   63.8595(g)(1), you
                                      for kiln process rate   subpart and emissions   must determine the maximum
                                      if the total facility   and production data     process rate(s) for your
                                      maximum potential HCl-  from the HF/HCl/Cl2     kiln(s) that would ensure
                                      equivalent emissions    performance test.       total facility maximum
                                      are greater than the                            potential HCl-equivalent
                                      HCl-equivalent limit                            emissions remain at or
                                      in Table 1 to this                              below the HCl-equivalent
                                      subpart.                                        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        Data from the           You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     temperature             measure the kiln operating
                                      kiln operating          measurement device      temperature, determine and
                                      temperature.            during the dioxin/      record the block average
                                                              furan performance       temperature values for the
                                                              test.                   three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific operating
                                                                                      limit.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is     Determine the           Production data         You must measure and record
 complying with PM and/or Hg          production rate         collected during the    the production rate, on a
 production-based emission limits.    during each PM/Hg       PM/Hg performance       fired-product weight
                                      test run in order to    tests (e.g., the        basis, of the affected
                                      determine compliance    number of ceramic       kiln for each of the three
                                      with PM and/or Hg       pieces and weight per   test runs.
                                      production-based        piece in the kiln
                                      emission limits.        during a test run
                                                              divided by the amount
                                                              of time to fire a
                                                              piece).
6. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped    Establish the           Data from the lime      For continuous lime
 with a DIFF or DLS/FF.               operating limit for     feeder during the HF/   injection systems, you
                                      the lime feeder         HCl performance test.   must ensure that lime in
                                      setting.                                        the feed hopper or silo
                                                                                      and to the APCD is free-
                                                                                      flowing at all times
                                                                                      during the performance
                                                                                      test and record the feeder
                                                                                      setting, on a per ton of
                                                                                      fired product basis, for
                                                                                      the three test runs. If
                                                                                      the feed rate setting
                                                                                      varies during the three
                                                                                      test runs, determine and
                                                                                      record the average feed
                                                                                      rate from the three test
                                                                                      runs. The average of the
                                                                                      three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific feed rate
                                                                                      operating limit.

[[Page 75708]]

 
7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped    a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
 with a WS.                           operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the PM    pressure drop, determine
                                      pressure drop.          performance test.       and record the block
                                                                                      average pressure drop
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      pressure drop measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      pressure drop operating
                                                                                      limit.
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the pH        You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     measurement device      measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    during the HF/HCl       liquid pH, determine and
                                      liquid pH.              performance test.       record the block average
                                                                                      pH values for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded pH measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      liquid pH operating limit.
                                     c. Establish the        Data from the flow      You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     rate measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the HF/   liquid flow rate,
                                      liquid flow rate.       HCl and PM              determine and record the
                                                              performance tests.      block average flow rate
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      flow rate measurements for
                                                                                      the three test runs. The
                                                                                      average of the three test
                                                                                      runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      liquid flow rate operating
                                                                                      level. If different
                                                                                      average wet scrubber
                                                                                      liquid flow rate values
                                                                                      are measured during the HF/
                                                                                      HCl and PM tests, the
                                                                                      highest of the average
                                                                                      values become your site-
                                                                                      specific operating limit.
8. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped    Establish the           Data from the chemical  You must continuously
 with a WS that includes chemical     operating limit for     feed rate measurement   measure the scrubber
 addition to the water.               the average scrubber    device during the HF/   chemical feed rate,
                                      chemical feed rate.     HCl performance test.   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 site-specific
                                                                                      chemical addition rate
                                                                                      operating limit.
9. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped    Establish the           Data from the carbon    You must measure the carbon
 with an ACI system.                  operating limit for     flow rate measurement   flow rate during each test
                                      the average carbon      conducted during the    run, determine and record
                                      flow rate.              Hg performance test.    the block average carbon
                                                                                      flow rate values for the
                                                                                      three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded carbon flow rate
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific activated
                                                                                      carbon flow rate operating
                                                                                      limit.
10. Tunnel or roller kiln intending  Establish the           Data from the           You must continuously
 to comply with dioxin/furan          operating limit for     temperature             measure the kiln operating
 emission limit without an ACI        kiln operating          measurement device      temperature, determine and
 system.                              temperature.            during the dioxin/      record the block average
                                                              furan performance       temperature values for the
                                                              test.                   three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific operating
                                                                                      limit.
11. Glaze spray operation equipped   a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
 with a WS.                           operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the PM    pressure drop, determine
                                      pressure drop.          performance test.       and record the block
                                                                                      average pressure drop
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      pressure drop measurements
                                                                                      for the three test runs.
                                                                                      The average of the three
                                                                                      test runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      pressure drop operating
                                                                                      limit.
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the flow      You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     rate measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the PM    liquid flow rate,
                                      liquid flow rate.       performance test.       determine and record the
                                                                                      block average flow rate
                                                                                      values for the three test
                                                                                      runs, and determine and
                                                                                      record the 3-hour block
                                                                                      average of the recorded
                                                                                      flow rate measurements for
                                                                                      the three test runs. The
                                                                                      average of the three test
                                                                                      runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific
                                                                                      liquid flow rate operating
                                                                                      limit.

[[Page 75709]]

 
12. Spray dryer....................  Establish the           Data from the           You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     temperature             measure the operating
                                      operating temperature.  measurement device      temperature, determine and
                                                              during the dioxin/      record the block average
                                                              furan performance       temperature values for the
                                                              test.                   three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your minimum
                                                                                      site-specific operating
                                                                                      limit.
13. Floor tile press dryer.........  Establish the           Data from the           You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     temperature             measure the operating
                                      operating temperature.  measurement device      temperature, determine and
                                                              during the dioxin/      record the block average
                                                              furan performance       temperature values for the
                                                              test.                   three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs. The average of
                                                                                      the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your maximum
                                                                                      site-specific operating
                                                                                      limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             You must
                                                           calculate its
                                                           2,3,7,8-TCDD
          For each dioxin/furan congener . . .             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 Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        You have demonstrated initial compliance
               For each . . .                 For the following . . .                   if . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel or roller kilns  a. HF, HCl, and Cl2        i. You measure HF and HCl emissions for
 at the facility.                             emissions must not         each kiln using Method 26 or 26A of 40
                                              exceed 62 kg/hr (140 lb/   CFR part 60, appendix A-8 or its
                                              hr) HCl equivalent.        alternative, ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved
                                                                         2009) (incorporated by reference, see
                                                                         Sec.   63.14); or Method 320 of
                                                                         appendix A of this part or its
                                                                         alternative, ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved
                                                                         2010) (incorporated by reference, see
                                                                         Sec.   63.14); and
                                                                        ii. You calculate the HCl-equivalent
                                                                         emissions for HF for each kiln using
                                                                         Equation 4 of Sec.   63.8595; and
                                                                        iii. You sum the HCl-equivalent values
                                                                         for all kilns at the facility using
                                                                         Equation 5 of Sec.   63.8595; 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   i. The PM emissions measured using
                                              exceed 0.090 kg/Mg (0.18   Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of fired product.  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 Sec.
                                                                         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.

[[Page 75710]]

 
                                             b. Hg emissions must not   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 4.6 ng/    using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2..            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   i. The PM emissions measured using
                                              exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20    Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of fired product.  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 Sec.
                                                                         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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 0.17 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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   a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 kiln.                                        exceed 0.17 kg/Mg (0.33    Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of fired product.  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 Sec.
                                                                         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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 1.5 ng/    using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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       a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 spraying.                                    exceed 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9     Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.  3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              glaze sprayed.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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.

[[Page 75711]]

 
6. Existing sanitaryware manual glaze        a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 application.                                 exceed 16 kg/Mg (33 lb/    Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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       a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 glaze application.                           exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (12 lb/   Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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         a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 application.                                 exceed 4.4 kg/Mg (8.8 lb/  Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 44 ng/     using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 0.12 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 0.19 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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   a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 kiln..                                       exceed 0.014 kg/Mg         Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (0.027 lb/ton) of fired    3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              product.                   appendix A-8, over the period of the
                                                                         initial performance test, according to
                                                                         the calculations in Sec.
                                                                         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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 1.9 E-05 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 1.5 ng/    using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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    a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 kiln.                                        exceed 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20    Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of fired product.  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 Sec.
                                                                         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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 1.0 E-04 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (2.0 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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.

[[Page 75712]]

 
                                             c. Dioxin/furan emissions  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 0.17 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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          a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 sanitaryware tunnel kiln.                    exceed 0.047 kg/Mg         Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (0.095 lb/ton) of fired    3 or Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              product.                   appendix A-8, over the period of the
                                                                         initial performance test, according to
                                                                         the calculations in Sec.
                                                                         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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 6.0 E-05 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (1.2 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              fired product.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
                                              must not exceed 0.37 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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     a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 with glaze spraying.                         exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.61    Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              lb/ton) of glaze sprayed.  3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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   i. The Hg emissions measured using
                                              exceed 7.9 E-05 kg/Mg      Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of       8 or its alternative, ASTM D6784-02
                                              glaze sprayed.             (Reapproved 2008) (incorporated by
                                                                         reference, see Sec.   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        a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 manual glaze application.                    exceed 1.9 kg/Mg (3.8 lb/  Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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  a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 machine glaze application.                   exceed 1.6 kg/Mg (3.2 lb/  Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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  a. PM emissions must not   i. The PM emissions measured using
 glaze application.                           exceed 1.1 kg/Mg (2.2 lb/  Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-
                                              ton) of glaze sprayed.     3, over the period of the initial
                                                                         performance test, according to the
                                                                         calculations in Sec.   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    a. Dioxin/furan emissions  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
 dryer.                                       must not exceed 0.17 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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     a. Dioxin/furan emissions  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
 dryer.                                       must not exceed 0.12 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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.

[[Page 75713]]

 
21. New or reconstructed floor tile press    a. Dioxin/furan emissions  i. The dioxin/furan emissions measured
 dryer.                                       must not exceed 0.19 ng/   using Method 23 of 40 CFR part 60,
                                              dscm at 7% O2.             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          a. Minimize HAP emissions  i. Use natural gas, or equivalent, as
 sanitaryware shuttle kiln..                                             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 Sec.  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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
        For each . . .          For the following  continuous compliance
                                      . . .               by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln        a. Each emission   i. If you use a bag
 equipped with a DIFF or DLS/    limit in Table 1   leak detection
 FF.                             to this subpart    system, initiating
                                 and each           corrective action
                                 operating limit    within 1 hour of a
                                 in Item 1 of       bag leak detection
                                 Table 2 to this    system alarm and
                                 subpart for        completing
                                 kilns equipped     corrective actions
                                 with DIFF or DLS/  in accordance with
                                 FF.                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 Sec.
                                                    63.8620(e) using
                                                    Method 22 of 40 CFR
                                                    part 60, appendix A-
                                                    7; and maintaining
                                                    no VE from the DIFF
                                                    or DLS/FF stack; and
                                                   ii. Verifying that
                                                    lime is free-flowing
                                                    via a load cell,
                                                    carrier gas/lime
                                                    flow indicator,
                                                    carrier gas pressure
                                                    drop measurement
                                                    system, or other
                                                    system; recording
                                                    all monitor or
                                                    sensor output, and
                                                    if lime is found not
                                                    to be free flowing,
                                                    promptly initiating
                                                    and completing
                                                    corrective actions
                                                    in accordance with
                                                    your OM&M plan;
                                                    recording the feeder
                                                    setting once each
                                                    shift of operation
                                                    to verify that the
                                                    feeder setting is
                                                    being maintained at
                                                    or above the level
                                                    established during
                                                    the HF/HCl
                                                    performance test.

[[Page 75714]]

 
2. Tunnel or roller kiln        a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
 equipped with a WS.             limit in Table 1   scrubber pressure
                                 to this subpart    drop data according
                                 and each           to Sec.
                                 operating limit    63.8600(a); reducing
                                 in Item 2 of       the scrubber
                                 Table 2 to this    pressure drop data
                                 subpart for        to 3-hour block
                                 kilns equipped     averages according
                                 with WS.           to Sec.
                                                    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
                                                    Sec.   63.8600(a);
                                                    reducing the
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the scrubber liquid
                                                    flow rate data to 3-
                                                    hour block averages
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the scrubber
                                                    chemical feed rate
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    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        Each emission      Collecting the carbon
 equipped with an ACI system.    limit in Table 1   flow rate data
                                 to this subpart    according to Sec.
                                 and each           63.8600(a); reducing
                                 operating limit    the carbon flow rate
                                 in Item 3 of       data to 3-hour block
                                 Table 2 to this    averages according
                                 subpart for        to Sec.
                                 kilns equipped     63.8600(a);
                                 with ACI system.   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      Collecting the kiln
 intending to comply with        limit in Table 1   operating
 dioxin/furan emission limit     to this subpart    temperature data
 without an ACI system.          and each           according to Sec.
                                 operating limit    63.8600(a); reducing
                                 in Item 4 of       the kiln operating
                                 Table 2 to this    temperature data to
                                 subpart for        3-hour block
                                 kilns intending    averages according
                                 to comply with     to Sec.
                                 dioxin/furan       63.8600(a);
                                 emission limit     maintaining the
                                 without an ACI     average kiln
                                 system.            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   a. Each emission   i. Performing VE
 no add-on control.              limit in Table 1   observations of the
                                 to this subpart    stack at the
                                 and each           frequency specified
                                 operating limit    in Sec.   63.8620(e)
                                 in Item 5 of       using Method 22 of
                                 Table 2 to this    40 CFR part 60,
                                 subpart for        appendix A-7; and
                                 tunnel or roller   maintaining no VE
                                 kilns with no      from the stack.
                                 add-on control.   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 Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the kiln process
                                                    rate data to 3-hour
                                                    block averages
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.
                                                    63.8595(g)(1).
                                                   iii. Collecting the
                                                    kiln operating
                                                    temperature data
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the kiln operating
                                                    temperature data to
                                                    3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    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        Each emission      If you use a bag leak
 equipped with a FF.             limit in Table 1   detection system,
                                 to this subpart    initiating
                                 and each           corrective action
                                 operating limit    within 1 hour of a
                                 in Item 6 of       bag leak detection
                                 Table 2 to this    system alarm and
                                 subpart for        completing
                                 glaze spray        corrective actions
                                 operations         in accordance with
                                 equipped with a    your OM&M plan;
                                 FF.                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 Sec.   63.8620(e)
                                                    using Method 22 of
                                                    40 CFR part 60,
                                                    appendix A-7; and
                                                    maintaining no VE
                                                    from the FF stack.

[[Page 75715]]

 
7. Glaze spray operation        a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
 equipped with a WS.             limit in Table 1   scrubber pressure
                                 to this subpart    drop data according
                                 and each           to Sec.
                                 operating limit    63.8600(a); reducing
                                 in Item 7 of       the scrubber
                                 Table 2 to this    pressure drop data
                                 subpart for        to 3-hour block
                                 kilns equipped     averages according
                                 with WS.           to Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the scrubber liquid
                                                    flow rate data to 3-
                                                    hour block averages
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    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        a. Each emission   Conducting daily
 equipped with a water curtain.  limit in Table 1   inspections to
                                 to this subpart    verify the presence
                                 and each           of water flow to the
                                 operating limit    wet control system;
                                 in Item 8 of       and
                                 Table 2 to this   Conducting weekly
                                 subpart for        visual inspections
                                 kilns equipped     of the system
                                 with a water       ductwork and control
                                 curtain.           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        Each emission      Conducting an annual
 equipped with baffles.          limit in Table 1   visual inspection of
                                 to this subpart    the baffles to
                                 and each           confirm the baffles
                                 operating limit    are in place.
                                 in Item 9 of
                                 Table 2 to this
                                 subpart for
                                 kilns equipped
                                 with baffles.
10. Spray dryer...............  Each emission      Collecting the
                                 limit in Table 1   operating
                                 to this subpart    temperature data
                                 and each           according to Sec.
                                 operating limit    63.8600(a); reducing
                                 in Item 10 of      the operating
                                 Table 2 to this    temperature data to
                                 subpart for        3-hour block
                                 spray dryers.      averages according
                                                    to Sec.
                                                    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      Collecting the
                                 limit in Table 1   operating
                                 to this subpart    temperature data
                                 and each           according to Sec.
                                 operating limit    63.8600(a); reducing
                                 in Item 11 of      the operating
                                 Table 2 to this    temperature data to
                                 subpart for        3-hour block
                                 floor tile press   averages according
                                 dryers.            to Sec.
                                                    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    i. Maintaining
                                 emissions.         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 Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.
                                                    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 Sec.   63.8640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8635, you must submit each report that 
applies to you according to the following table.

[[Page 75716]]

                          Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      You must submit the report
       You must submit . . .                  The report must contain . . .                      . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report.............  a. If there are no deviations from any emission  Semiannually according to
                                      limitations or work practice standards that      the requirements in Sec.
                                      apply to you, a statement that there were no      63.8635(b).
                                      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.
                                     b. If you have a deviation from any emission     Semiannually according to
                                      limitation (emission limit, operating limit)     the requirements in Sec.
                                      during the reporting period, the report must      63.8635(b).
                                      contain the information in Sec.   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 Sec.   63.8635(e).
2. A report of alternative fuel use  The information in Sec.   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 Sec.  63.8655, you must comply with the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to Subpart
              Citation                       Subject              Brief description               KKKKK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1........................  Applicability.........  Initial applicability        Yes.
                                                              determination;
                                                              applicability after
                                                              standard established;
                                                              permit requirements;
                                                              extensions, notifications.
Sec.   63.2........................  Definitions...........  Definitions for part 63      Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.3........................  Units and               Units and abbreviations for  Yes.
                                      Abbreviations.          part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4........................  Prohibited Activities.  Compliance date;             Yes.
                                                              circumvention;
                                                              severability.
Sec.   63.5........................  Construction/           Applicability;               Yes.
                                      Reconstruction.         applications; approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a).....................  Applicability.........  General Provisions (GP)      Yes.
                                                              apply unless compliance
                                                              extension; GP apply to
                                                              area sources that become
                                                              major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (4)......  Compliance Dates for    Standards apply at           Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   effective date; 3 years
                                      sources.                after effective date; upon
                                                              startup; 10 years after
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction commences
                                                              for section 112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..................  Notification..........  Must notify if commenced     Yes.
                                                              construction or
                                                              reconstruction after
                                                              proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  ......................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                      New and Reconstructed   major must comply with
                                      Area Sources That       major source standards
                                      Become Major.           immediately upon becoming
                                                              major, regardless of
                                                              whether required to comply
                                                              when they were area
                                                              sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2)..........  Compliance Dates for    Comply according to date in  Yes.
                                      Existing Sources.       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.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4)..........  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..................  Compliance Dates for    Area sources that become     Yes.
                                      Existing Area Sources   major must comply with
                                      That Become Major.      major source standards by
                                                              date indicated in subpart
                                                              or by equivalent time
                                                              period (for example, 3
                                                              years).
Sec.   63.6(d).....................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)...............  Operation &             General Duty to minimize     No. See Sec.
                                      Maintenance.            emissions.                   63.8570(b) for
                                                                                           general duty
                                                                                           requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)..............  Operation &             Requirement to correct       No.
                                      Maintenance.            malfunctions ASAP.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii).............  Operation &             Operation and maintenance    Yes.
                                      Maintenance.            requirements enforceable
                                                              independent of emissions
                                                              limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..................  Startup, Shutdown, and  Requirement for startup,     No.
                                      Malfunction Plan        shutdown, and malfunction
                                      (SSMP).                 (SSM) and SSMP; content of
                                                              SSMP.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)..................  Compliance Except       You must comply with         No.
                                      During SSM.             emission standards at all
                                                              times except during SSM.

[[Page 75717]]

 
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)..........  Methods for             Compliance based on          Yes.
                                      Determining             performance test,
                                      Compliance.             operation and maintenance
                                                              plans, records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g).....................  Alternative Standard..  Procedures for getting an    Yes.
                                                              alternative standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).....................  Opacity/VE Standards..  Requirements for opacity     No, not applicable.
                                                              and VE standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).....................  Compliance Extension..  Procedures and criteria for  Yes.
                                                              Administrator to grant
                                                              compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(j).....................  Presidential            President may exempt source  Yes.
                                      Compliance Exemption.   category.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1) and (2)..........  Performance Test Dates  Dates for conducting         Yes.
                                                              initial performance
                                                              testing and other
                                                              compliance demonstrations
                                                              for emission limits and
                                                              work practice standards;
                                                              must conduct 180 days
                                                              after first subject to
                                                              rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..................  Section 114 Authority.  Administrator may require a  Yes.
                                                              performance test under CAA
                                                              section 114 at any time.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4)..................  Notification of Delay   Must notify Administrator    Yes.
                                      in Performance          of delay in performance
                                      Testing Due To Force    testing due to force
                                      Majeure.                majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..................  Notification of         Must notify Administrator    Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       60 days before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..................  Notification of         Must notify Administrator 5  Yes.
                                      Rescheduling.           days before scheduled date
                                                              of rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c).....................  Quality Assurance (QA)/ Requirements; test plan      Yes.
                                      Test Plan.              approval procedures;
                                                              performance audit
                                                              requirements; internal and
                                                              external QA procedures for
                                                              testing.
Sec.   63.7(d).....................  Testing Facilities....  Requirements for testing     Yes.
                                                              facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..................  Conditions for          Performance tests must be    No, Sec.   63.8595
                                      Conducting              conducted under              specifies
                                      Performance Tests.      representative conditions.   requirements.
                                                             Cannot conduct performance   Yes.
                                                              tests during SSM; not a
                                                              violation to exceed
                                                              standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2) and (3)..........  Conditions for          Must conduct according to    Yes.
                                      Conducting              subpart and EPA test
                                      Performance Tests.      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.
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..................  Testing under Section   Administrator's authority    Yes.
                                      114.                    to require testing under
                                                              section 114 of the Act.
Sec.   63.7(f).....................  Alternative Test        Procedures by which          Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator can grant
                                                              approval to use an
                                                              alternative test method.
Sec.   63.7(g).....................  Performance Test Data   Must include raw data in     Yes.
                                      Analysis.               performance test report;
                                                              must submit performance
                                                              test data 60 days after
                                                              end of test with the
                                                              notification of compliance
                                                              status.
Sec.   63.7(h).....................  Waiver of Tests.......  Procedures for               Yes.
                                                              Administrator to waive
                                                              performance test.
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..................  Applicability of        Subject to all monitoring    Yes.
                                      Monitoring              requirements in subpart.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..................  Performance             Performance Specifications   Yes.
                                      Specifications.         in appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                              part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..................  [Reserved]............  ...........................  No.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..................  Monitoring with Flares  Requirements for flares in   No, not applicable.
                                                              Sec.   63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..................  Monitoring............  Must conduct monitoring      Yes.
                                                              according to standard
                                                              unless Administrator
                                                              approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2) and (3)..........  Multiple Effluents and  Specific requirements for    Yes.
                                      Multiple Monitoring     installing and reporting
                                      Systems.                on monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..................  Monitoring System       Maintenance consistent with  Yes.
                                      Operation and           good air pollution control
                                      Maintenance.            practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...............  Routine and             Reporting requirements for   No.
                                      Predictable SSM.        SSM when action is
                                                              described in SSMP.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..............  SSM not in SSMP.......  Reporting requirements for   Yes.
                                                              SSM when action is not
                                                              described in SSMP.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii).............  Compliance with         How Administrator            No.
                                      Operation and           determines if source
                                      Maintenance             complying with operation
                                      Requirements.           and maintenance
                                                              requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3)..........  Monitoring System       Must install to get          Yes.
                                      Installation.           representative emission
                                                              and parameter measurements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)..................  CMS Requirements......  Requirements for CMS.......  No, Sec.   63.8600
                                                                                           specifies
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)..................  Continuous Opacity      COMS minimum procedures....  No, not applicable.
                                      Monitoring System
                                      (COMS) Minimum
                                      Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..................  CMS Requirements......  Zero and high level          Yes.
                                                              calibration check
                                                              requirements.

[[Page 75718]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8)..........  CMS Requirements......  Out-of-control periods.....  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d).....................  CMS Quality Control...  Requirements for CMS         Yes.
                                                              quality control.
Sec.   63.8(e).....................  CMS Performance         Requirements for CMS         Yes.
                                      Evaluation.             performance evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (5)......  Alternative Monitoring  Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Method.                 Administrator to approve
                                                              alternative monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..................  Alternative to          Procedures for               No, not applicable.
                                      Relative Accuracy       Administrator to approve
                                      Test.                   alternative relative
                                                              accuracy test for
                                                              continuous emission
                                                              monitoring systems (CEMS).
Sec.   63.8(g).....................  Data Reduction........  COMS and CEMS data           No, not applicable.
                                                              reduction requirements.
Sec.   63.9(a).....................  Notification            Applicability; State         Yes.
                                      Requirements.           delegation.
Sec.   63.9(b).....................  Initial Notifications.  Requirements for initial     Yes.
                                                              notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c).....................  Request for Compliance  Can request if cannot        Yes.
                                      Extension.              comply by date or if
                                                              installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d).....................  Notification of         For sources that commence    Yes.
                                      Special Compliance      construction between
                                      Requirements for New    proposal and promulgation
                                      Source.                 and want to comply 3 years
                                                              after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e).....................  Notification of         Notify Administrator 60      Yes.
                                      Performance Test.       days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f).....................  Notification of VE/     Notify Administrator 30      No, not applicable.
                                      Opacity Test.           days prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..................  Additional              Notification of performance  Yes.
                                      Notifications When      evaluation.
                                      Using CMS.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2) and (3)..........  Additional              Notification of COMS data    No, not applicable.
                                      Notifications When      use; notification that
                                      Using CMS.              relative accuracy
                                                              alternative criterion were
                                                              exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h).....................  Notification of         Contents; submittal          Yes.
                                      Compliance Status.      requirements.
Sec.   63.9(i).....................  Adjustment of           Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Submittal Deadlines.    Administrator to approve
                                                              change in when
                                                              notifications must be
                                                              submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j).....................  Change in Previous      Must submit within 15 days   Yes.
                                      Information.            after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)....................  Recordkeeping/          Applicability; general       Yes.
                                      Reporting.              information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).................  General Recordkeeping   General requirements.......  Yes.
                                      Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..............  Records Related to SSM  Recordkeeping of occurrence  No.
                                                              and duration of startups
                                                              and shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).............  Records Related to SSM  Recordkeeping of failures    No. See Sec.
                                                              to meet a standard.          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.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)............  Records Related to SSM  Maintenance records........  Yes.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).....  Records Related to SSM  Actions taken to minimize    No.
                                                              emissions during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) through       CMS Records...........  Records when CMS is          Yes.
 (xii) and (xiv).                                             malfunctioning,
                                                              inoperative or out-of-
                                                              control.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii)...........  Records...............  Records when using           No, not applicable.
                                                              alternative to relative
                                                              accuracy test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).................  Records...............  Applicability                Yes.
                                                              Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1) through (15)....  Records...............  Additional records for CMS.  No, Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                           63.8575 and 63.8640
                                                                                           specify requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1) and (2).........  General Reporting       Requirements for reporting;  Yes.
                                      Requirements.           performance test results
                                                              reporting.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).................  Reporting Opacity or    Requirements for reporting   No, not applicable.
                                      VE Observations.        opacity and VE.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4).................  Progress Reports......  Must submit progress         Yes.
                                                              reports on schedule if
                                                              under compliance extension.
Sec.   63.10(d)(5).................  SSM Reports...........  Contents and submission....  No. See Sec.
                                                                                           63.8635(f) for
                                                                                           malfunction reporting
                                                                                           requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1) through (3).....  Additional CMS Reports  Requirements for CMS         No, Sec.  Sec.
                                                              reporting.                   63.8575 and 63.8635
                                                                                           specify requirements.

[[Page 75719]]

 
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).................  Reporting COMS data...  Requirements for reporting   No, not applicable.
                                                              COMS data with performance
                                                              test data.
Sec.   63.10(f)....................  Waiver for              Procedures for               Yes.
                                      Recordkeeping/          Administrator to waive.
                                      Reporting.
Sec.   63.11.......................  Flares................  Requirement for flares.....  No, not applicable.
Sec.   63.12.......................  Delegation............  State authority to enforce   Yes.
                                                              standards.
Sec.   63.13.......................  Addresses.............  Addresses for reports,       Yes.
                                                              notifications, requests.
Sec.   63.14.......................  Incorporation by        Materials incorporated by    Yes.
                                      Reference.              reference.
Sec.   63.15.......................  Availability of         Information availability;    Yes.
                                      Information.            confidential information.
Sec.   63.16.......................  Performance Track       Requirements for             Yes.
                                      Provisions.             Performance Track member
                                                              facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-28125 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```