Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0251
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
Posted Date: 2015-10-26T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65469-65570]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25724]

[[Page 65469]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 206

October 26, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and NESHAP 
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 206 / Monday, October 26, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 65470]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9933-13-OAR]
RIN 2060-AP69

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and NESHAP for 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All major sources in these categories must 
meet maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for mercury 
(Hg), non-mercury (non-Hg) metal hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (or 
particulate matter (PM) surrogate) and dioxins/furans (Clay Ceramics 
only); health-based standards for acid gas HAP; and work practice 
standards, where applicable. The final rule, which has been informed by 
input from industry (including small businesses), environmental groups, 
and other stakeholders, protects air quality and promotes public health 
by reducing emissions of HAP listed in section 112 of the Clean Air Act 
(CAA).

DATES: This action is effective on December 28, 2015. The incorporation 
by reference of certain publications listed in this rule is approved by 
the Director of the Federal Register as of December 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established dockets for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All documents 
in the dockets are listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed 
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is 
(202) 566-1742.

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

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

ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
APCD air pollution control device
ASOS Automated Surface Observing Systems
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BIA Brick Industry Association
BLD bag leak detection
BSCP Brick and Structural Clay Products
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CASRN Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number
CBI Confidential Business Information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cl2 chlorine
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
DHHS Department of Health and Human Services
DIFF dry lime injection fabric filter
DLA dry limestone adsorber
DLS/FF dry lime scrubber/fabric filter
DOD Department of Defense
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guideline
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FF fabric filter
FQPA Food Quality Protection Act
FRFA final regulatory flexibility analysis
FTIR Fourier transform infrared
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HBEL health-based emission limit
HCl hydrogen chloride
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector version 1.3.1)
HF hydrogen fluoride
Hg mercury
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer
ICR information collection request
IRFA initial regulatory flexibility analysis
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
lb/hr pounds per hour
lb/ton pounds per ton
LML lowest measured level
LOAEL lowest observed adverse effects level
LOEL lowest observed effects level
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/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
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/kg nanograms per kilogram
NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
No. number
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOAEL no observed adverse effect level
Non-Hg non-mercury
NOX nitrogen oxides
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
NWS National Weather Service
O2 oxygen
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OM&M operation, maintenance and monitoring
OMB Office of Management and Budget
%R percent recovery
PM particulate matter
PM2.5 particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 
micrometers in diameter
ppm parts per million
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SBAR Small Business Advocacy Review
SBE Standard Brick Equivalent
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

[[Page 65471]]

SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSM startup, shutdown and malfunction
TEQ 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents
TOSHI target-organ-specific hazard index
tph tons per hour
tpy tons per year
TTN Technology Transfer Network
[micro]g/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
[micro]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VE visible emissions
yr year

    Background Information Documents. On December 18, 2014, the EPA 
proposed NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). In this action, we are finalizing the 
rules. Documents summarizing the public comments on the proposal and 
presenting the EPA responses to those comments are available in Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing.
    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Executive Summary
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    D. Judicial Review
II. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for the final rule?
    B. What actions preceded this final rule?
    C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 
BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?
III. Summary of the Final Rule
    A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing?
    B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing?
    C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
    F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 
CFR part 51?
IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale
    A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP?
    B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP?
    C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since 
proposal?
V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Health-Based Standards
    B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
    C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the cost and emission reduction impacts?
    B. What are the secondary impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the benefits?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 
standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and 
subcategory listed under section 112(c). We issued the NESHAP for BSCP 
Manufacturing and the NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing on May 16, 
2003. The two NESHAP were vacated and remanded by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on March 13, 
2007. To address the vacatur and remand of the original NESHAP, we are 
issuing standards for BSCP manufacturing facilities and clay ceramics 
manufacturing facilities located at major sources.
2. Summary of the Major Provisions
a. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP
    The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for non-Hg HAP metals 
(or PM surrogate) and Hg, and a health-based emission limit (HBEL) for 
acid gases (hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl) and 
chlorine (Cl2)) for BSCP tunnel kilns. In addition, the EPA 
is finalizing work practice standards for periodic kilns, dioxins/
furans from tunnel kilns, and periods of startup and shutdown for 
tunnel kilns. To demonstrate compliance with the emission limits, the 
EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance testing for the 
regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily visible emissions 
(VE) checks. Owners/operators whose BSCP tunnel kilns are equipped with 
a fabric filter (FF) (e.g., dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), 
dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF)) have the option of 
demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection (BLD) system or 
daily VE checks.
b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
    The EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for Hg, PM (surrogate 
for non-Hg HAP metals), and dioxins/furans and HBEL for acid gases (HF 
and HCl) for sanitaryware tunnel kilns and ceramic tile roller kilns. 
In addition, the EPA is finalizing MACT emission limits for dioxins/
furans for ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers, MACT 
emission limits for Hg and PM (surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for 
ceramic tile glaze lines and MACT emission limits for PM (surrogate for 
non-Hg HAP metals) for sanitaryware glaze spray booths. The EPA is also 
finalizing work practice standards for shuttle kilns and periods of 
startup and shutdown. To demonstrate compliance with the emission 
limits, the EPA is requiring initial and repeat 5-year performance 
testing for the regulated pollutants, parameter monitoring, and daily 
VE checks. Owners/operators whose affected sources are equipped with an 
FF (e.g., DIFF, DLS/FF) have the option of demonstrating compliance 
using a BLD system or daily VE checks.
3. Costs and Benefits
    Table 1 of this preamble summarizes the costs and benefits of this 
action for 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ (BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP), 
while Table 2 of this preamble summarizes the costs of this action for 
40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). See 
section VI of this preamble for further discussion of the costs and 
benefits for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the costs for the Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. See section VII.B of this preamble for 
discussion of the recordkeeping and reporting costs.

[[Page 65472]]

                   Table 1--Summary of the Costs and Benefits of 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart JJJJJ
                                           (Millions of 2011 dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Net benefit (7 percent
                Requirement                     Capital cost       Annual cost             discount). \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission controls..........................              $62.3              $23.7  $48 to 150.
Emissions testing..........................               2.26              0.552
Monitoring.................................                 --              0.352
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Net benefit is the annual cost subtracted from the total monetized benefits (at a 7-percent discount rate).
  For more information, see section 7 of ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products
  NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

     Table 2--Summary of the Costs of 40 CFR part 63, Subpart KKKKK
                       (Millions of 2011 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Requirement                Capital cost       Annual cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission controls.................                 $0                 $0
Emissions testing.................              0.267             0.0655
Monitoring........................                 --             0.0269
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
action are shown in Table 3 of this preamble:

   Table 3-- Neshap and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
            Category                NAICS Code \a\       potentially
                                         \b\          regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................             327120  Brick, structural
                                                      clay, and extruded
                                                      tile manufacturing
                                                      facilities (BSCP
                                                      Manufacturing
                                                      NESHAP); and
                                                      ceramic wall and
                                                      floor tile
                                                      manufacturing
                                                      facilities (Clay
                                                      Ceramics
                                                      Manufacturing
                                                      NESHAP).
                                             327110  Vitreous plumbing
                                                      fixtures
                                                      (sanitaryware)
                                                      manufacturing
                                                      facilities (Clay
                                                      Ceramics
                                                      Manufacturing
                                                      NESHAP).
Federal government..............  .................  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government...  .................  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.
\b\ Refractories manufacturing is not included in the source categories
  affected by this action.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility, company, business, 
organization, etc., is regulated by this action, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.8385 of subpart JJJJJ (BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP) or 40 CFR 63.8535 of subpart KKKKK (Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, contact either the 
delegated authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative 
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. Following signature 
by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this action at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html. Following publication in 
the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of 
the final rule and key technical documents at this same Web site.

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
December 28, 2015. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by these final rules may not be challenged separately in 
any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the 
requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to 
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC North 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy 
to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and 
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. 
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 65473]]

II. Background Information

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

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 
standards for HAP emitted by sources in each source category and 
subcategory listed under section 112(c). The MACT standards for 
existing sources must be at least as stringent as the average emissions 
limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing 
sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) or the 
best performing five sources for source categories with less than 30 
sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). This level of minimum 
stringency is called the MACT floor. For new sources, MACT standards 
must be at least as stringent as the control level achieved in practice 
by the best controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA 
also must consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. 
When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must not only 
consider the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must 
also take into account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts 
when doing so.

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(5), the EPA was originally required 
to promulgate standards for the BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing source categories by November 2000. The agency initially 
promulgated standards for these categories in 2003. See 68 FR 26690 
(May 16, 2003). Those standards were challenged and subsequently 
vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in 2007. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 876 
(D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2008, Sierra Club filed suit in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under CAA section 
304(a)(2), alleging that the EPA had a continuing mandatory duty to 
promulgate standards for these categories under CAA section 112 based 
on the 2000 deadline under CAA section 112(c)(5). The EPA challenged 
that claim in a motion to dismiss, arguing that the mandatory duty to 
act by the 2000 deadline was satisfied by the 2003 rule and that the 
2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule did not recreate the statutory duty to 
act by the 2000 deadline. Ultimately, the Court found that the vacatur 
of the 2003 rule recreated the mandatory duty to set standards by 2000 
and held that Sierra Club's claims could continue. See Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 850 F.Supp.2d 300 (D.D.C. 2012). The EPA and Sierra Club then 
negotiated a consent decree to settle the litigation and establish 
proposal and promulgation deadlines for establishing standards for 
these categories.
    Following the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA began efforts 
to collect additional data to support new standards for the BSCP and 
clay ceramics industries. The EPA conducted an initial information 
collection effort in 2008 to update information on the inventory of 
affected units, hereafter referred to as ``the 2008 EPA survey.'' The 
EPA conducted a second information collection effort in 2010 to obtain 
additional emissions data and information on each facility's startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) procedures, hereafter referred to as 
``the 2010 EPA survey.'' The information collected as part of these 
surveys, and not claimed as CBI by respondents, is available in Docket 
ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291. In addition, the 
dockets A-99-30 and OAR-2002-0054 are incorporated by reference for 
BSCP. The dockets A-2000-48, OAR-2002-0055, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0424 
are incorporated by reference for clay ceramics.
    On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed NESHAP for BSCP 
Manufacturing and NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. See 79 FR 
75622 (December 18, 2014). In response to a request from industry, the 
EPA extended the public comment period for the proposed action from 
February 17, 2015, to March 19, 2015. See 79 FR 78768 (December 31, 
2014). In this action, the EPA is finalizing the rule.

C. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the BSCP 
Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source categories?

    The final rule protects air quality and promotes the public health 
by reducing emissions of HAP emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics kilns. 
Emissions data collected during development of the final rule show that 
acid gases such as HF, HCl, and Cl2 represent the 
predominant HAP emitted by BSCP and clay ceramics kilns, accounting for 
99.3 percent of the total HAP emissions. These kilns also emit lesser 
amounts of other HAP compounds such as HAP metals and dioxins/furans, 
accounting for about 0.7 percent of total HAP emissions. The HAP metals 
emitted include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
cobalt, lead, manganese, Hg, nickel and selenium. Exposure to these 
HAP, depending on exposure duration and levels of exposures, can be 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects could include chronic health disorders (e.g., irritation 
of the lung, skin and mucus membranes, effects on the central nervous 
system and damage to the kidneys) and acute health disorders (e.g., 
lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and 
vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous system). We 
have classified two of the HAP as human carcinogens (arsenic and 
chromium VI) and four as probable human carcinogens (cadmium, lead, 
dioxins/furans and nickel).

III. Summary of the Final Rule

    The following sections summarize the final requirements for the 
BSCP Manufacturing source category and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
source category. Section IV of this preamble summarizes the major 
changes since proposal.

A. What are the final rule requirements for BSCP Manufacturing?

1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
    The final NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing applies to BSCP 
manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a major 
source of HAP emissions. The BSCP Manufacturing source category 
includes those facilities that manufacture brick (face brick, 
structural brick, brick pavers and other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; 
extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay 
products.
2. What are the affected sources?
    The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the 
category for which we are setting standards, are (1) all tunnel kilns 
at a BSCP manufacturing facility and (2) each periodic kiln. For 
purposes of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, tunnel kilns are 
defined to include any type of continuous kiln used at BSCP 
manufacturing facilities, including roller kilns.
    Tunnel kilns are fired by natural gas or other fuels, including 
sawdust. Sawdust firing typically involves the use of a sawdust dryer 
because sawdust typically is purchased wet and needs to be dried before 
it can be used as fuel. Consequently, some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns 
have two process streams, including (1) a process stream that exhausts 
directly to the atmosphere or to an air pollution control device 
(APCD), and (2) a process stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to 
a sawdust dryer where it is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to 
the

[[Page 65474]]

atmosphere. Both process streams are subject to the requirements of the 
final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP.
    The following BSCP process units are not subject to the 
requirements of the final rule: (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for 
setting glazes on previously fired products, (2) raw material 
processing and handling, and (3) dryers. Sources regulated under the 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing 
NESHAP are not subject to the requirements of the BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP.
3. Does the final rule apply to me?
    This final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or operators 
of an affected source at a major source meeting the requirements 
discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of HAP emissions 
is any stationary source or group of stationary sources located within 
a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 
of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet?
    Emission limitations. We are providing a choice of emission limits 
for total non-Hg HAP metals and Hg for new and existing tunnel kilns in 
two subcategories based on kiln size. In this final BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP, a large tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln 
with a design capacity of 10 tons per hour (tph) or greater, and a 
small tunnel kiln is defined as a new or existing tunnel kiln with a 
design capacity of less than 10 tph. The options for total non-Hg HAP 
metals include total non-Hg HAP metals limits in units of pounds per 
hour (lb/hr) and options for limiting PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 
metals in units of pounds per ton (lb/ton) or grains per dry standard 
cubic foot (gr/dscf) at 17-percent oxygen (O2). The options 
for Hg include emission limits in units of lb/ton, lb/hr or micrograms 
per dry standard cubic meter ([micro]g/dscm) at 17-percent 
O2. We are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent 
for all existing and new tunnel kilns at the facility to reduce the 
acid gases HF, HCl and Cl2. The emission limits for acid 
gases, Hg, and non-Hg HAP metals are presented in Table 4 of this 
preamble.

   Table 4--Acid Gases, Total Non-Mercury HAP Metals and Mercury Emission Limits for Brick and Structural Clay
                                              Products Tunnel Kilns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subcategory                      Acid gases        Total non-Hg HAP metals             Hg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Limits for existing sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph).......             --            0.036 lb/ton PM OR       4.1 E-05 lb/ton OR 5.5
                                                                 0.0029 gr/dscf PM at     E-04 lb/hr OR 7.7
                                                                 17-percent O2 OR         [micro]g/dscm at 17-
                                                                 0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg      percent O2 for each
                                                                 HAP metals for each      existing large tunnel
                                                                 existing tunnel kiln     kiln at facility
                                                                 at facility.
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph)........             --            0.37 lb/ton PM OR        3.3 E-04 lb/ton OR
                                                                 0.0021 gr/dscf PM at     0.0019 lb/hr OR 91
                                                                 17-percent O2 OR 0.11    [micro]g/dscm at 17-
                                                                 lb/hr non-Hg HAP         percent O2 for each
                                                                 metals for each          existing small tunnel
                                                                 existing tunnel kiln     kiln at facility
                                                                 at facility.
All tunnel kilns.....................  57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent             --                       --
                                        for collection of all
                                        tunnel kilns at
                                        facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Limits for new sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large tunnel kilns (>= 10 tph).......             --            0.018 lb/ton PM OR       2.8 E-05 lb/ton OR 3.4
                                                                 0.0014 gr/dscf PM at     E-04 lb/hr OR 6.2
                                                                 17-percent O2 OR         [micro]g/dscm at 17-
                                                                 0.0057 lb/hr non-Hg      percent O2 for each
                                                                 HAP metals for each      new large tunnel kiln
                                                                 new tunnel kiln at       at facility
                                                                 facility.
Small tunnel kilns (< 10 tph)........             --            0.030 lb/ton PM OR       3.3 E-04 lb/ton OR
                                                                 0.0021 gr/dscf PM at     0.0019 lb/hr OR 91
                                                                 17-percent O2 OR 0.11    [micro]g/dscm at 17-
                                                                 lb/hr non-Hg HAP         percent O2 for each
                                                                 metals for each new      new small tunnel kiln
                                                                 tunnel kiln at           at facility
                                                                 facility.
All tunnel kilns.....................  57 lb/hr HCl-equivalent             --                       --
                                        for collection of all
                                        tunnel kilns at
                                        facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards for 
BSCP periodic kilns in lieu of HAP emission limits. The work practice 
standards require developing and using a designed firing time and 
temperature cycle for each periodic kiln; labeling each periodic kiln 
with the maximum load (in tons) of product that can be fired in the 
kiln during a single firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage placed 
in the kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the 
maximum load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for 
each kiln that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 
developing and maintaining records for each periodic kiln, including 
logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the 
periodic kilns.
    We are also issuing work practice standards for BSCP tunnel kilns 
in lieu of dioxin/furan emission limits. The work practice standards 
require maintaining and inspecting the burners and associated 
combustion controls (as applicable); tuning the specific burner type to 
optimize combustion; keeping records of each burner tune-up; and 
submitting a report for each tune-up conducted. As discussed in section 
III.C.1.a of this preamble, we are also issuing work practice standards 
for periods of startup and shutdown.

[[Page 65475]]

5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources 
subject to emission limits conduct an initial performance test using 
specified EPA test methods to demonstrate initial compliance with all 
applicable emission limits. A performance test must be conducted before 
renewing the facility's 40 CFR part 70 operating permit or at least 
every 5 years following the initial performance test, as well as when 
an operating limit parameter value is being revised.
    Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or operator is 
required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, Hg and PM (or 
non-Hg HAP metals). We are requiring that the owner or operator measure 
HF, HCl and Cl2 using one of the following methods:
     EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-8;
     EPA Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, when 
no acid particulate (e.g., HF, HCl or Cl2 dissolved in water 
droplets emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
     EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 
provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 
of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the 
complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    Following the performance test, the owner or operator must 
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 2 in 40 CFR 
63.8445(f)(2)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner 
or operator must sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using Equation 3 
in 40 CFR 63.8445(f)(2)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent 
and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases.
    As noted above, with respect to non-Hg HAP metals, the owner or 
operator of a source can choose to meet either a non-Hg HAP metals 
limit or one of two alternative PM limits. If the owner or operator 
chooses to comply with one of the two PM emission limits rather than 
the non-Hg HAP metals limit, we are requiring that the owner or 
operator measure PM emissions using one of the following methods:
     EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions 
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
     EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From 
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    If the owner or operator chooses to comply with the non-Hg HAP 
metals emission limit instead of one of the PM emission limits, the 
owner or operator must measure non-Hg HAP metals emissions using EPA 
Method 29 cited above or any other alternative method that has been 
approved by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General 
Provisions. The owner or operator may also use Method 29 or any other 
approved alternative method to measure Hg emissions.
    The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 
requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or 
operator is required to install the continuous parameter monitoring 
system (CPMS) equipment (as discussed in section III.A.6 of this 
preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operating limits. During the initial test, the owner or operator must 
use the CPMS to establish site-specific operating parameter values that 
represent the operating limits.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 
and record the feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for 
the three test runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or 
operator is required to determine the average feed rate from the three 
test runs. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum 
site-specific feed rate operating limit. If there are different average 
feed rate values during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/
Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values becomes the 
site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is present, the owner or 
operator is required to submit analyses and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for BLD 
systems.
    For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a 
BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses 
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA 
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a dry limestone adsorber (DLA), we are requiring that the owner 
or operator continuously measure the pressure drop across the DLA 
during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and determine the 3-
hour block average pressure drop. The average of the three test runs 
establishes the minimum site-specific pressure drop operating limit. 
Alternatively, the owner or operator may continuously monitor the 
bypass stack damper position at least once every 15 minutes during the 
performance test. The owner or operator also must maintain an adequate 
amount of limestone in the limestone hopper, storage bin (located at 
the top of the DLA) and DLA at all times. In addition, the owner or 
operator is required to establish the limestone feeder setting (on a 
per ton of fired product basis) 1 week prior to the performance test 
and maintain the feeder setting for the 1-week period that precedes the 
performance test and during the performance test. Finally, the owner or 
operator must document the source and grade of the limestone used 
during the performance test.
    For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate 
during both the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 
performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the owner or 
operator is required to determine and record the average values for the 
three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The average of the 
three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific liquid pH and 
liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average wet scrubber 
liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM/non-Hg HAP metals 
and HF/HCl/Cl2 tests, the highest of the average values 
become the site-specific operating limit.
    For an activated carbon injection (ACI) system, we are requiring 
that the owner or operator measure the activated carbon flow rate 
during the Hg performance test and determine the 3-hour block average 
flow rate. The average of the three test runs establishes the minimum 
site-specific activated carbon flow rate operating limit.
    For a source with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the 
owner or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using 
Equation 4 in 40 CFR 63.8445(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use 
the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the 
maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design

[[Page 65476]]

capacity of the kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the 
performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent 
of the maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a 
facility, the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl-
equivalent for each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential 
HCl-equivalent and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If 
the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the 
HBEL, we are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum 
process rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, 
the owner or operator must determine one or more combinations of 
maximum process rates that result in a total facility maximum potential 
HCl-equivalent that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process 
rate(s) becomes the operating limit(s) for process rate.
6. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the owner or 
operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the 
requirements in the operation, maintenance and monitoring (OM&M) plan 
and document conformance with the OM&M plan. The owner or operator must 
also operate a CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established 
during the initial performance test as described in the following 
paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at least every 15 minutes, 
including at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at 
least 75 percent if there are more than four data values per hour) per 
hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or operator must operate 
the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. The owner or 
operator must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS (including 
inspections, calibrations and validation checks) and maintain an 
inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the 
recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate and record the 
3-hour block average values of each operating parameter. To calculate 
the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or operator 
must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for that period.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL 
by maintaining free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the 
APCD at all times. If lime is not flowing freely, according to load 
cell output, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 
measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly 
initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. 
The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per 
ton of fired product basis) at or above the level established during 
the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test and record the feeder 
setting once each shift.
    The final rule provides the option to use either a BLD system or VE 
monitoring to demonstrate parametric compliance.
    For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or 
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm 
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner 
or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm 
is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 
6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time 
fraction, the owner or operator must not count any alarm time if 
inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective action is 
required. If corrective action is required, the owner or operator must 
count each alarm as a minimum of 1 hour. If corrective action is 
initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the owner or operator must 
count as alarm time the actual amount of time taken to initiate 
corrective action.
    For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that if VE are 
observed during any daily test conducted using Method 22 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7, the owner or operator must promptly conduct an 
opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-4. If opacity greater than 10 percent if observed, the 
owner or operator must initiate and complete corrective actions 
according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive 
daily Method 22 tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is observed 
during any of the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack, the owner or 
operator may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from daily to 
weekly for that kiln stack. If VE are observed during any weekly test 
and opacity greater than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent 
Method 9 test, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and 
complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan, resume testing 
of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, 
on a daily basis, and maintain that schedule until no VE are observed 
in 30 consecutive daily tests or no opacity greater than 10 percent is 
observed during any of the Method 9 tests, at which time the owner or 
operator may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing to a 
weekly basis.
    If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test 
conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, the owner or 
operator must report these deviations by following the requirements in 
40 CFR 63.8485.
    In lieu of conducting VE tests as described above, the owner or 
operator may conduct a PM test at least once every year following the 
initial performance test, according to the procedures of Method 5 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-3, and the provisions of 40 CFR 63.8445(e) and 
(f)(1).
    For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 
parametric compliance.
    For a DLA, we are requiring that the owner or operator demonstrate 
compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL by collecting 
and recording data documenting the DLA pressure drop and reducing the 
data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain the 
average pressure drop across the DLA for each 3-hour block period at or 
above the average pressure drop established during the HF/HCl/
Cl2 performance test. Alternatively, the owner or operator 
may continuously monitor the bypass stack damper position at least once 
every 15 minutes during normal kiln operation. Any period in which the 
bypass damper is opened allowing the kiln exhaust gas to bypass the DLA 
triggers corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner or 
operator also must verify that the limestone hopper, storage bin 
(located at the top of the DLA) and DLA contain an adequate amount of 
limestone by performing a daily visual check of the limestone hopper 
and the storage bin. A daily visual check could include one of the 
following: (1) Conducting a physical check of the hopper; (2) creating 
a visual access point, such as a window, on the side of the hopper; (3) 
installing a camera in the hopper that provides continuous feed to a 
video monitor in the control room; or (4) confirming that load level 
indicators in the hopper are not indicating the need for additional 
limestone. If the hopper or storage bin does not contain adequate 
limestone, the owner or operator must promptly initiate and complete 
corrective actions

[[Page 65477]]

according to the OM&M plan. The owner or operator also must record the 
limestone feeder setting daily (on a per ton of fired product basis) to 
verify that the feeder setting is being maintained at or above the 
level established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test. 
The owner or operator also must use the same grade of limestone from 
the same source as was used during the HF/HCl/Cl2 
performance test and maintain records of the source and type of 
limestone. Finally, the owner or operator must monitor VE, as described 
in the previous paragraph.
    For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber liquid pH 
and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the minimum values 
established during the applicable performance test. Maintaining the 3-
hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or above the minimum value 
established during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance test 
demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl/Cl2) HBEL. 
Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at 
or above the lowest minimum value established during the PM/non-Hg HAP 
metals and HF/HCl/Cl2 performance tests demonstrates 
compliance with all applicable emission limits by showing that the 
scrubber is in proper working order.
    For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the Hg emission limit by continuously 
monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining it at or 
above the operating limit established during the Hg performance test.
    For sources with no APCD, we are requiring that the owner or 
operator monitor VE as described above to demonstrate compliance with 
the PM/non-Hg HAP metals emission limit. In addition, if the last 
calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent was not at 
or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are requiring that the owner 
or operator collect and record data documenting the process rate of the 
kiln and reduce the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or 
operator must maintain the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln 
process rate operating limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum 
potential HCl-equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL.
7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
    All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 10 of subpart JJJJJ. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping and reporting.
    Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of 
compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General 
Provisions. The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires the owner or 
operator to include in the notification of compliance status report 
certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 
compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are 
also required for each semiannual reporting period.
    The final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to demonstrate 
compliance with each emission limit and work practice standard. These 
recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in the General 
Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 8 of subpart 
JJJJJ.
    Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator keep the 
following records:
     All reports and notifications submitted to comply with the 
final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP.
     Records of performance tests.
     Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 
approved routine control device maintenance.
     Continuous monitoring data as required in the final BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP.
     Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
     Records of each instance in which the owner or operator 
did not meet each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating 
limits).
     Records of production rates.
     Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 
procedures.
     Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 
APCD.
     Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 
conformance.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the periodic kiln work practice standard.
     Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/
furan work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
     Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 
taken.
     Records of parameters and procedures followed for work 
practice standards.
    We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the 
following reports and notifications:
     Notifications required by the General Provisions.
     Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 
the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
     Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 
other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
     Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test.
     Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not 
include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstrations for the 
work practice standards).
     Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of 
the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply with the dioxin/
furan work practice standard and a report of each malfunction resulting 
in an exceedance and the corrective action taken.
     Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days 
of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-
computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data 
collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this 
preamble for more information).

B. What are the final rule requirements for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing?

1. What source category is affected by the final rule?
    This final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing applies to clay 
ceramics manufacturing facilities that are located at or are part of a 
major source of HAP emissions. The Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source 
category includes those facilities that manufacture pressed floor tile, 
pressed wall tile and other pressed tile; or sanitaryware (e.g., 
toilets and sinks).
2. What are the affected sources?
    The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the 
category for which we are setting standards, are (1) each ceramic tile 
roller kiln; (2) each floor tile press dryer; (3) each ceramic tile 
spray dryer; (4) each ceramic tile glaze line using glaze spraying; (5) 
each sanitaryware tunnel kiln; (6) each sanitaryware shuttle kiln; and 
(7) each sanitaryware glaze spray booth.
    The following clay ceramics process units are not subject to the 
requirements

[[Page 65478]]

of the final rule: (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used 
exclusively for refiring; (2) tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are 
used exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products; (3) 
glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those kilns 
listed in items 1 and 2 above; (4) process units listed in items 1 
through 3 above that are permitted to, but do not, process first-fire 
ware, until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware; (5) 
refire shuttle kilns that fire no more than four batches per year of 
first-fire ware; (6) glaze spray operations that on average use wet 
glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight 
basis) per spray booth over an entire calendar year; (7) raw material 
processing and handling; (8) wall tile press dryers; and (9) 
sanitaryware ware dryers. Sources regulated under the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP or the Refractories Manufacturing NESHAP are not 
subject to the requirements of the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
3. Does the final rule apply to me?
    This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP applies to owners or 
operators of an affected source at a major source meeting the 
requirements discussed previously in this preamble. A major source of 
HAP emissions is any stationary source or group of stationary sources 
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or 
has the potential to emit, considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any 
HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP.
4. What emission limitations and work practice standards must I meet?
    Emission limitations. We are issuing emission limits for PM as a 
surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals (in units of lb/ton) for all new 
and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware tunnel kilns and 
ceramic tile and sanitaryware glazing operations. We are issuing 
emission limits for Hg (lb/ton) for all new and existing ceramic tile 
roller kilns, ceramic tile glaze lines and sanitaryware tunnel kilns. 
We are issuing emission limits for dioxin/furan (nanograms of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQ) per kilogram (ng/
kg)) for all new and existing ceramic tile roller kilns, sanitaryware 
tunnel kilns, floor tile press dryers and ceramic tile spray dryers. We 
are also issuing an emission limit for HCl-equivalent for all existing 
and new roller and tunnel kilns at each facility to reduce the acid 
gases HF and HCl. The emission limits are presented in Table 5 of this 
preamble.

                               Table 5--Emission Limits for Clay Ceramics Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Acid gases
                                                    (lb/hr HCl-                     PM \b\ (lb/   Dioxins/furans
                   Subcategory                      equivalent)     Hg (lb/ton)        ton)         (ng/kg) \c\
                                                        \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Limits for existing sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns.........................             140        1.3 E-04            0.13             2.8
Floor tile press dryers.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.024
Floor tile spray dryers.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............              19
Wall tile roller kilns..........................             140        2.1 E-04            0.37            0.22
Wall tile spray dryers..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.058
Tile glaze lines................................  ..............        1.6 E-04             1.9  ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns............             140        2.6 E-04            0.34             3.3
Sanitaryware manual glaze application...........  ..............  ..............              35  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application....  ..............  ..............              13  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze application............  ..............  ..............             8.9  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Limits for new sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns.........................             140        3.9 E-05           0.037             1.3
Floor tile press dryers.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.024
Floor tile spray dryers.........................  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.071
Wall tile roller kilns..........................             140        2.1 E-04            0.37            0.22
Wall tile spray dryers..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............           0.058
Tile glaze lines................................  ..............        1.6 E-04            0.61  ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns............             140        1.3 E-04           0.095            0.99
Sanitaryware manual glaze application...........  ..............  ..............             3.9  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze application....  ..............  ..............             3.2  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze application............  ..............  ..............             2.3  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Limit applies to collection of all kilns at facility.
\b\ PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.
\c\ ng/kg = nanograms per kilogram.

    Work practice standards. We are issuing work practice standards in 
lieu of emission limits for acid gases (HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP 
metals for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The work practice standards 
require using natural gas (or equivalent) as kiln fuel except during 
periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption; developing 
and using a designed firing time and temperature cycle for each shuttle 
kiln; labeling each shuttle kiln with the maximum load (in tons) of 
throughput (greenware) that can be fired in the kiln during a single 
firing cycle; documenting the total tonnage of greenware placed in the 
kiln for each load to ensure that it is not greater than the maximum 
load; developing and implementing maintenance procedures for each kiln 
that specify the frequency of inspection and maintenance; and 
developing and maintaining records for each shuttle kiln, including 
logs to document the proper operation and maintenance procedures of the 
shuttle kilns. As discussed in section III.C.1.b of this preamble, we 
are also issuing work practice standards for periods of startup and 
shutdown.
5. What are the testing and initial compliance requirements?
    We are requiring that owners or operators of all affected sources 
subject to emission limits conduct an initial

[[Page 65479]]

performance test using specified EPA test methods to demonstrate 
initial compliance with all applicable emission limits. A performance 
test must be conducted before renewing the facility's 40 CFR part 70 
operating permit or at least every 5 years following the initial 
performance test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is 
being revised.
    Under the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, the owner or 
operator is required to measure emissions of HF, HCl, Hg, PM (as a 
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. The owner or 
operator must measure HF and HCl from ceramic tile roller kilns and 
sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using one of the following 
methods:
     EPA Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and 
Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A-8;
     EPA Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride 
Emissions from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8, when 
no acid particulate (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets 
emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present;
     EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR'' 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, 
provided the test follows the analyte spiking procedures of section 13 
of Method 320, unless the owner or operator can demonstrate that the 
complete spiking procedure has been conducted at a similar source; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    Following the performance test, the owner or operator must 
calculate the HCl-equivalent for the kiln using Equation 4 in 40 CFR 
63.8595(f)(4)(i). If there are multiple kilns at a facility, the owner 
or operator must sum the HCl-equivalent for each kiln using Equation 5 
in 40 CFR 63.8595(f)(4)(ii) to get the total facility HCl-equivalent 
and compare this value to the HBEL.
    We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions 
from ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns 
using one of the following methods:
     EPA Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions 
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3;
     EPA Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions From 
Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8; or
     Any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    Method 29 or any other approved alternative method may also be used 
to measure Hg emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns, ceramic tile 
glaze lines and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns.
    We are requiring that the owner or operator measure PM emissions 
from ceramic tile and sanitaryware glaze spray booths using EPA Method 
5 or any other alternative method that has been approved by the 
Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    We are also requiring that the owner or operator measure dioxin/
furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns and spray dryers, floor 
tile press dryers and sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns using EPA 
Method 23, ``Determination of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and 
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans From Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-7 or any other alternative method that has been approved 
by the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the General Provisions.
    The following paragraphs discuss the initial compliance 
requirements. Prior to the initial performance test, the owner or 
operator is required to install the CPMS equipment (as discussed in 
section III.B.6 of this preamble) to be used to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the operating limits. During the initial test, the 
owner or operator must use the CPMS to establish site-specific 
operating parameter values that represent the operating limits.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
ensure that lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-
flowing at all times during the HF/HCl performance test and record the 
feeder setting (on a per ton of fired product basis) for the three test 
runs. If the lime feed rate varies, the owner or operator is required 
to determine the average feed rate from the three test runs. The 
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 
feed rate operating limit. If there are different average feed rate 
values during the PM and HF/HCl tests, the highest of the average 
values becomes the site-specific operating limit. If a BLD system is 
present, the owner or operator is required to submit analyses and 
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance 
and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a stand-alone FF (i.e., no dry sorbent injection or DLS) and a 
BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or operator submit analyses 
and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA 
guidance and specifications for BLD systems.
    For a wet scrubber, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
continuously measure the scrubber liquid pH during the HF/HCl 
performance test and the scrubber liquid flow rate during both the PM 
and HF/HCl performance tests. For each wet scrubber parameter, the 
owner or operator is required to determine and record the average 
values for the three test runs and the 3-hour block average value. The 
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 
liquid pH and liquid flow rate operating limits. If different average 
wet scrubber liquid flow rate values are measured during the PM and HF/
HCl tests, the highest of the average values become the site-specific 
operating limits.
    For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
measure the activated carbon flow rate during the Hg and dioxin/furan 
performance tests and determine the 3-hour block average flow rate. The 
average of the three test runs establishes the minimum site-specific 
activated carbon flow rate operating limit. If different average 
activated carbon flow rate values are measured during the Hg and 
dioxin/furan tests, the highest of the average values becomes the site-
specific operating limit.
    If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan 
emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner 
or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln 
during the dioxin/furan performance test. The highest 4-hour average 
stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the maximum site-
specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also measure the 
operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile 
press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and determine the 
3-hour block average temperature. The average of the three test runs 
establishes the site-specific operating limit.
    For sources with no APCD installed, we are requiring that the owner 
or operator calculate the maximum potential HCl-equivalent using 
Equation 6 in 40 CFR 63.8595(g)(1)(i). The owner or operator must use 
the results from the performance test to determine the emissions at the 
maximum possible process rate. For example, if the design capacity of 
the tunnel or roller kiln is 10 tph and the production rate during the 
performance test was 9 tph, then the test results represent 90 percent 
of the

[[Page 65480]]

maximum potential emissions. If there are multiple kilns at a facility, 
the owner or operator must sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent for 
each kiln to get the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 
and compare this value to the HBEL for acid gases. If the total 
facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent is greater than the HBEL, we 
are requiring that the owner or operator determine the maximum process 
rate for which the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 
remains at or below the HBEL. If there are multiple kilns, the owner or 
operator must determine one or more combinations of maximum process 
rates that result in a total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent 
that remains at or below the HBEL. The maximum process rate(s) becomes 
the operating limit(s) for process rate. We are also requiring that the 
owner or operator measure the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller 
kiln during the dioxin/furan performance test. The highest 4-hour 
average stack temperature of the three test runs establishes the 
maximum site-specific operating limit. The owner or operator must also 
measure the operating temperatures of the ceramic tile spray dryer and 
floor tile press dryer during the dioxin/furan performance test and 
determine the 3-hour block average temperature. The average of the 
three test runs establishes the site-specific operating limit.
6. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    The final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires that the 
owner or operator demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies. The owner or operator must follow the 
requirements in the OM&M plan and document conformance with the OM&M 
plan. The owner or operator must also operate a CPMS to monitor the 
operating parameters established during the initial performance test as 
described in the following paragraphs. The CPMS must collect data at 
least every 15 minutes, including at least three of four equally spaced 
data values (or at least 75 percent if there are more than four data 
values per hour) per hour to have a valid hour of data. The owner or 
operator must operate the CPMS at all times when the process is 
operating. The owner or operator must also conduct proper maintenance 
of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations and validation checks, 
and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the 
CPMS. Using the recorded readings, the owner or operator must calculate 
and record the 3-hour block average values of each operating parameter. 
To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, the owner or 
operator must have at least 75 percent of the recorded readings for 
that period.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL by maintaining 
free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all 
times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load 
cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 
measurement system or other system, the owner or operator must promptly 
initiate and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. 
The owner or operator must also maintain the feeder setting (on a per 
ton of throughput basis) at or above the level established during the 
performance test and record the feeder setting once each shift.
    For a DIFF or DLS/FF, the final rule provides the option to use 
either a BLD system or VE monitoring to demonstrate parametric 
compliance.
    For the option of a BLD system, we are requiring that the owner or 
operator initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a BLD system alarm 
and complete corrective actions according to the OM&M plan. The owner 
or operator must also operate and maintain the FF such that the alarm 
is not engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 
6-month block reporting period. In calculating this operating time 
fraction, if inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective 
action is required, no alarm time is counted. If corrective action is 
required, each alarm must be counted as a minimum of 1 hour and if 
corrective action is initiated more than 1 hour after an alarm, the 
alarm time must be counted as the actual amount of time taken to 
initiate corrective action.
    For the option of monitoring VE, we are requiring that the owner or 
operator perform daily, 15-minute VE observations in accordance with 
the procedures of EPA Method 22, ``Visual Determination of Fugitive 
Emissions from Material Sources and Smoke Emissions from Flares,'' 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7. During the VE observations, the source must 
be operating under normal conditions. If VE are observed, the owner or 
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions 
according to the OM&M plan. If no VE are observed in 30 consecutive 
daily EPA Method 22 tests, the owner or operator may decrease the 
frequency of EPA Method 22 testing from daily to weekly for that 
source. If VE are observed during any weekly test, the owner or 
operator must promptly initiate and complete corrective actions 
according to the OM&M plan and the owner or operator must resume EPA 
Method 22 testing of that source on a daily basis until no VE are 
observed in 30 consecutive daily tests, at which time the owner or 
operator may again decrease the frequency of EPA Method 22 testing to a 
weekly basis.
    For a stand-alone FF, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
use a BLD system or monitor VE as described above to demonstrate 
parametric compliance.
    For a wet scrubber on a tunnel or roller kiln, we are requiring 
that the owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block 
averages for scrubber liquid pH and scrubber liquid flow rate at or 
above the minimum values established during the applicable performance 
test. Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid pH at or 
above the minimum values established during the HF/HCl performance test 
demonstrates compliance with the acid gas (HF/HCl) HBEL. Maintaining 
the 3-hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the 
lowest minimum value established during the PM and HF/HCl performance 
tests demonstrates compliance with all applicable emission limits by 
showing that the scrubber is in proper working order.
    For an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner or operator 
demonstrate compliance with the Hg and dioxin/furan emission limits by 
continuously monitoring the activated carbon flow rate and maintaining 
it at or above the lowest minimum value established during the Hg and 
dioxin/furan performance tests.
    If the owner or operator intends to comply with the dioxin/furan 
emission limit without an ACI system, we are requiring that the owner 
or operator demonstrate compliance by continuously monitoring the stack 
temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln and the operating temperature 
of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor tile press dryer and 
maintaining it at or below the highest 4-hour average temperature 
during the dioxin/furan performance test for the tunnel or roller kiln, 
at or above the average temperature during the dioxin/furan performance 
test for the ceramic tile spray dryer, and at or below the average 
temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile 
press dryer.
    For a wet scrubber on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring 
that the

[[Page 65481]]

owner or operator continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for 
scrubber pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the 
minimum values established during the applicable performance test. 
Maintaining the 3-hour block average for scrubber pressure drop at or 
above the minimum value established during the PM performance test 
demonstrates compliance with the PM emission limit. Maintaining the 3-
hour block average for scrubber liquid flow rate at or above the 
minimum value established during the PM performance test demonstrates 
compliance with the PM emission limit by showing that the scrubber is 
in proper working order.
    For a water curtain on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring 
that the owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission 
limit by conducting a daily inspection to verify the presence of water 
flow to the wet control system, conducting weekly visual inspections of 
the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks and conducting 
annual inspections of the interior of the control equipment (if 
applicable) to determine the structural integrity and condition of the 
control equipment.
    For baffles on a spray glazing operation, we are requiring that the 
owner or operator demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit by 
conducting an annual visual inspection of the baffles to confirm the 
baffles are in place.
    For a source with no APCD, we are requiring that, to demonstrate 
compliance with the PM emission limit, the owner or operator monitor VE 
as described above. We are also requiring that, to demonstrate 
compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limit, the owner or operator 
continuously monitor the stack temperature of the tunnel or roller kiln 
and operating temperature of the ceramic tile spray dryer and floor 
tile press dryer and maintain it at or below the highest 4-hour average 
stack temperature during the dioxin/furan performance test for the 
tunnel or roller kiln, at or above the average operating temperature 
during the dioxin/furan performance test for the ceramic tile spray 
dryer, and at or below the average operating temperature during the 
dioxin/furan performance test for the floor tile press dryer. In 
addition, if the last calculated total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent was not at or below the HBEL for acid gases, then we are 
requiring that the owner or operator collect and record data 
documenting the process rate of the tunnel or roller kiln and reduce 
the data to 3-hour block averages. The owner or operator must maintain 
the kiln process rate(s) at or below the kiln process rate operating 
limit(s) that enables the total facility maximum potential HCl-
equivalent to remain at or below the HBEL.
7. What are the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
    All new and existing sources are required to comply with certain 
requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), 
which are identified in Table 11 of subpart KKKKK. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping and reporting.
    Each owner or operator is required to submit a notification of 
compliance status report, as required by 40 CFR 63.9(h) of the General 
Provisions. This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires the 
owner or operator to include in the notification of compliance status 
report certifications of compliance with rule requirements. Semiannual 
compliance reports, as required by 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A, are 
also required for each semiannual reporting period.
    This final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP requires records to 
demonstrate compliance with each emission limit and work practice 
standard. These recordkeeping requirements are specified directly in 
the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 and are identified in Table 9 
of subpart KKKKK.
    Specifically, we are requiring that the owner or operator must keep 
the following records:
     All reports and notifications submitted to comply with 
this final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
     Records of performance tests.
     Records relating to APCD maintenance and documentation of 
approved routine control device maintenance.
     Continuous monitoring data as required in this final Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.
     Records of BLD system alarms and corrective actions taken.
     Each instance in which the owner or operator did not meet 
each emission limit (i.e., deviations from operating limits).
     Records of production rates.
     Records of approved alternative monitoring or testing 
procedures.
     Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the 
APCD.
     Current copies of the OM&M plan and records documenting 
conformance.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the shuttle kiln work practice standard.
     Logs of the information required to document compliance 
with the startup and shutdown work practice standards.
     Records of each malfunction and the corrective action 
taken.
     Records of parameters and procedures followed for work 
practice standards.
    We are also requiring that the owner or operator submit the 
following reports and notifications:
     Notifications required by the General Provisions.
     Initial Notification no later than 120 calendar days after 
the affected source becomes subject to this subpart.
     Notification of Intent to conduct performance tests and/or 
other compliance demonstration at least 60 calendar days before the 
performance test and/or other compliance demonstration is scheduled.
     Notification of Compliance Status 60 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test.
     Notification of Compliance Status 30 calendar days 
following completion of a compliance demonstration that does not 
include a performance test (i.e., compliance demonstration for the work 
practice standard).
     Compliance reports semi-annually, including a report of 
each malfunction resulting in an exceedance and the corrective action 
taken.
     Report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days 
after terminating use of the alternative fuel.
     Results of each performance test within 60 calendar days 
of completing the test, submitted to the EPA by direct computer-to-
computer electronic transfer via EPA-provided software for data 
collected using supported test methods (see section III.E of this 
preamble for more information).

C. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction?

    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA 
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods 
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in 
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section 
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that some section 112 standards apply continuously.

[[Page 65482]]

1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown
    Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established 
standards in this rule that apply at all times. In establishing the 
standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into account startup and 
shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained in the preamble to the 
proposed rule and in sections IV.A.4 and IV.B.2 of this preamble, has 
established alternate standards for those periods.
a. BSCP Manufacturing
    The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this 
paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns 
with APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to 
determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature and the startup kiln car 
push rate of the product. For startup, the owner or operator is 
required to vent the exhaust from the kiln through the APCD at all 
times when the exhaust temperature is at or above the minimum inlet 
temperature. In addition, the owner or operator may not exceed the 
startup kiln car push rate until the kiln exhaust is vented to the 
APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator is required to vent the 
exhaust from the kiln through the APCD until the kiln exhaust 
temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature. In 
addition, the kiln car push rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as 
the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln cars may be introduced into 
the kiln once the kiln exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum 
inlet temperature. When the kiln exhaust is being vented through the 
APCD, the owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable 
continuous compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this 
preamble.
    The EPA is issuing similar work practice standards for periods of 
startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns without an APCD as well. As 
a first step, the owner or operator is required to determine the 
product-specific kiln temperature profile and the startup kiln car push 
rate of the product. For startup, the startup kiln car push rate may 
not be exceeded until the kiln reaches the product-specific kiln 
temperature profile. For shutdown, the kiln car push rate is to be 
steadily decreased to zero as the kiln cools. No additional loaded kiln 
cars may be introduced into the kiln once the kiln falls below the 
product-specific kiln temperature profile. When the kiln production 
rate is greater than the startup kiln car push rate, the owner or 
operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous 
compliance requirements described in section III.A.6 of this preamble.
b. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
    The EPA is issuing the work practice standards described in this 
paragraph for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller 
kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and 
sanitaryware tunnel kilns with APCD. As a first step, the owner or 
operator is required to determine the APCD minimum inlet temperature 
and the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the owner 
or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer 
through the APCD at all times when the exhaust temperature is at or 
above the minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the owner or operator 
may not exceed the startup production rate of the product until the 
kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, 
the owner or operator is required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or 
dryer through the APCD until the exhaust temperature falls below the 
APCD minimum inlet temperature. In addition, the production rate is to 
be steadily decreased to zero as the kiln or dryer cools. No additional 
throughput may be introduced to the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer 
once the exhaust temperature falls below the APCD minimum inlet 
temperature. When the exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the 
owner or operator is required to comply with the applicable continuous 
compliance requirements described in section III.B.6 of this preamble.
    The EPA is also issuing work practice standards for periods of 
startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns without 
an APCD. As a first step, the owner or operator is required to 
determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile and 
the startup production rate of the product. For startup, the startup 
production rate may not be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust 
temperature reaches the product-specific temperature profile. For 
shutdown, the production rate is to be steadily decreased to zero as 
the kiln or dryer cools. No additional throughput may be introduced to 
the kiln, press dryer and spray dryer once the kiln, press dryer or 
spray dryer falls below the product-specific temperature profile. When 
the kiln or dryer production rate is greater than the startup 
production rate, the owner or operator is required to comply with the 
applicable continuous compliance requirements described in section 
III.B.6 of this preamble.
2. Periods of Malfunction
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions, 
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are by 
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2) 
(Definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not 
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be 
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards. Under section 
112, emissions standards for new sources must be no less stringent than 
the level ``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source and for 
existing sources generally must be no less stringent than the average 
emission limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of 
sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that 
directs the agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 
``achieved'' by the best performing sources when setting emission 
standards. As the DC Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average 
emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' 
sources ``says nothing about how the performance of the best units is 
to be calculated.'' Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 
F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for 
variability in setting emissions standards, nothing in CAA section 112 
requires the agency to consider malfunctions as part of that analysis. 
A malfunction should not be treated in the same manner as the type of 
variation in performance that occurs during routine operations of a 
source. A malfunction is a failure of the source to perform in a 
``normal or usual manner'' and no statutory language compels the EPA to 
consider such events in setting section CAA 112 standards.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions in setting emission standards 
would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad different types 
of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in the category and 
given the difficulties associated with predicting or accounting for the 
frequency, degree, and duration of various malfunctions that might 
occur. As such, the performance of units that are malfunctioning is not 
``reasonably'' foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 
658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``The EPA typically has wide latitude in 
determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a

[[Page 65483]]

problem. We generally defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the 
basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than to `invest the 
resources to conduct the perfect study.''') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. 
Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of 
things, no general limit, individual permit, or even any upset 
provision can anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, 
the transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts 
of third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or 
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for 
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, emissions 
during a malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions 
at any other time of source operation. For example, if an APCD with 99-
percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (as might 
happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse catch fire) and the 
emission unit is a steady state type unit that would take days to shut 
down, the source would go from 99-percent control to zero control until 
the APCD was repaired. The source's emissions during the malfunction 
would be 100 times higher than during normal operations. As a result, 
the emissions over a 4-day malfunction period would exceed the annual 
emissions of the source during normal operations. As this example 
illustrates, accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that 
are not reflective of (and significantly less stringent than) levels 
that are achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. It is 
reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to avoid such a result. The 
EPA's approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and 
is a reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable and was not instead caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement 
action against a source for violation of an emission standard is 
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that 
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what, 
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement 
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative 
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether 
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular, 
section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid 
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing 
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur 
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those 
situations.

D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
are effective on December 28, 2015.
    If the initial startup of the affected source is after December 18, 
2014, but before December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is no 
later than December 28, 2015. If the initial startup of the affected 
source is after December 28, 2015, then the compliance date is 
immediately upon initial startup of the affected source. The compliance 
date for existing affected sources is no later than December 26, 2018.
    The initial performance test must be conducted within 180 calendar 
days after the compliance date specified in 40 CFR 63.8395 for affected 
sources of BSCP manufacturing and 40 CFR 63.8545 for affected sources 
of clay ceramics manufacturing, according to the provisions in 40 CFR 
60.7(a)(2). The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be conducted no 
later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and 
thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance 
test. The date to submit performance test data through the Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT) is within 60 calendar days after the date of 
completing each performance test.

E. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    The EPA is requiring owners or operators of BSCP and clay ceramics 
facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required performance 
test reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). As stated in 
the proposed preamble, the EPA believes that the electronic submittal 
of the reports addressed in this rulemaking will increase the 
usefulness of the data contained in those reports, is in keeping with 
current trends in data availability, will further assist in the 
protection of public health and the environment and will ultimately 
result in less burden on the regulated community. Electronic reporting 
can also eliminate paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time 
and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, 
minimizing data reporting errors and providing data quickly and 
accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the 
public.
    As mentioned in the preamble of the proposal, the EPA Web site that 
stores the submitted electronic data, WebFIRE, will be easily 
accessible to everyone and will provide a user-friendly interface that 
any stakeholder could access. By making the records, data and reports 
addressed in this rulemaking readily available, the EPA, the regulated 
community and the public will benefit when the EPA conducts its CAA-
required technology and risk-based reviews. As a result of having 
reports readily accessible, our ability to carry out comprehensive 
reviews will be increased and achieved within a shorter period of time.
    We anticipate fewer or less substantial information collection 
requests (ICRs) in conjunction with prospective CAA-required technology 
and risk-based reviews may be needed. We expect this to result in a 
decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data collection 
requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive stack 
testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data 
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to 
industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews 
more quickly. While the regulated community may benefit from a reduced 
burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the agency's ability 
to provide these required reviews more quickly, resulting in increased 
public health and environmental protection.
    Air agencies could benefit from more streamlined and automated 
review of the electronically submitted data. Having reports and 
associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the 
use of software ``search'' options, as well as the downloading and 
analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. The ability to access and 
review air emission report information electronically will assist air 
agencies to

[[Page 65484]]

more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the applicable 
regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to violations which 
could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits both air agencies 
and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by 
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal. In 
summary, in addition to supporting regulation development, control 
strategy development and other air pollution control activities, having 
an electronic database populated with performance test data will save 
industry, air agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort 
while improving the quality of emission inventories, air quality 
regulations, and enhancing the public's access to this important 
information.

F. What materials are being incorporated by reference under 1 CFR part 
51?

    In this final rule, the EPA is including regulatory text that 
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference the following 
documents described in the amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR 
approved for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJ and Table 4 to subpart KKKKK. To 
correct an earlier, inadvertent error that exists in the CFR, we are 
also adding back in the IBR approval for Table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
     ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 
to subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
     ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for 
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 
(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to subpart 
JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
     ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Tables 4 and 5 to 
subpart JJJJJ and Tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.8450(e)(1), (9), and (10) and 40 CFR 
63.8600(e)(1), (9), and (10).

    The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents 
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or 
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble for more information).

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale

    The following sections summarize the significant changes made to 
the proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
NESHAP, including the rationale for those changes, to respond to public 
comments and to correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors 
in the proposal. A detailed discussion of these and other public 
comments, as well as other changes not discussed in this section, can 
be found in the response-to-comments documents, available in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. All changes to the 
final rules, including the significant changes discussed in this 
section and all other changes not discussed in this section, can also 
be found in the redline comparison of the proposed and final regulatory 
text, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for BSCP 
Manufacturing and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing.

A. What are the significant changes since proposal for the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP?

1. Changes to the Data Set
    Following proposal, the EPA learned that two of the facilities in 
the inventory at proposal were closed and the kilns were demolished. In 
addition, the EPA learned that two of the synthetic area sources in the 
inventory at proposal were actually true area sources. These facilities 
were removed from the master inventory, and the test data from kilns at 
two of these facilities were also removed from the data set. The EPA 
learned that a new tunnel kiln had been constructed at a new facility, 
and that new facility was added to the inventory. The EPA also received 
additional HF, HCl, and PM test data for three kilns, which was added 
into the data set.
    In addition, the EPA examined the PM test data more closely and 
found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe or filter 
temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. EPA Method 5 
specifies that the temperature should be maintained at 248  
25 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (i.e., between 223 and 
273[emsp14][deg]F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were 
removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ``Test Data Used in BSCP 
Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for 
more information on this analysis.)
    Several public commenters stated that the concentration limits for 
PM and Hg should not be corrected to 7-percent O2 because 
BSCP kilns operate with a higher O2 content; one commenter 
suggested that the EPA use data corrected to 17- percent O2 
instead. The EPA evaluated this comment and agrees that 17-percent 
O2 is more representative of BSCP kiln operations. 
Specifically, the EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-
by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns and found that for 
the PM data set, the oxygen content ranged from 9.5 to 20.5 percent, 
with an average of 16.8 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run 
O2 values rounded to whole numbers. For the Hg data set, the 
oxygen content ranged from 13.1 to 19.5 percent, with an average of 
17.2 and a mode of 17 when evaluating the run-by-run O2 
values rounded to whole numbers. The EPA agrees that correcting 
concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7-percent, 
as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns' operating 
conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. Therefore, 
the EPA recalculated the oxygen-corrected PM and Hg test runs to be 
corrected to 17-percent instead of 7-percent O2.
2. Changes to the MACT Floor Pool and Calculations
    At proposal, the MACT floors for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg 
HAP metals were based on kilns with FF-based APCD, as the EPA 
considered those to be the best performing sources in the industry. 
However, as noted in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA after 
proposal examined the PM test data in an effort to insure that the data 
were valid. We found a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs had probe 
or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable values. These 
out-of-range temperatures invalidated the test runs, and in some cases, 
invalidated entire PM tests, reducing the set of valid, available test 
data. Some of the PM test

[[Page 65485]]

data removed from the data set were for kilns controlled with a DIFF. 
As a result, the EPA no longer has data on all the kilns with a FF-
based APCD in the industry, which undercuts one of the bases for EPA's 
proposal to use the best performing FF-based kilns to set a MACT floor 
based on 12 percent of the kilns in the entire category.
    In addition, at proposal the EPA requested more data to further 
substantiate that kilns with FF-based APCD actually represented the 
best performing sources in terms of PM emissions. For example, there 
were some data in the record at the time of the proposal suggesting 
that in some cases, uncontrolled kilns actually had emissions below the 
PM emissions of some kilns with FF-based APCD, which is contrary to 
what we would expect. The EPA requested information to explain these 
anomalies. However, information was not received during the comment 
period sufficient to explain why some kilns without FF-based APCD 
emitted at levels as low as or lower than some kilns with FF-based 
APCD.
    For this reason, and because some of the emissions data on DIFF-
controlled kilns had to be removed from the data pool as discussed 
above, the record does not support the conclusion that we have PM 
emissions data on all the best performing kilns in the industry. Given 
that, we are instead basing the PM MACT floor on 12 percent of the 
kilns for which we have emissions data. Therefore, the final MACT floor 
pools for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are not based 
on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the 27 best 
performing sources). Instead, the final MACT floor limits are based on 
the top 12 percent of the sources for which we have emissions data 
available in each of the kiln size subcategories, consistent with the 
approach described for the proposed alternate non-Hg HAP metals 
standards in section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 
75649).
    In addition, in response to public comments received on the 
proposed rule, and consistent with the proposed alternate approach in 
section IV.Q.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA has 
decided to exercise its discretion to subcategorize for emissions of PM 
based on kiln size in the final rule. Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA 
allows the EPA to promulgate emission standards for either categories 
or subcategories of sources. Section IV.C of the preamble to the 
proposed rule (79 FR 75633) described the EPA's assessment of tunnel 
kiln size subcategories. When the EPA recalculated the MACT floor pools 
for PM as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals as described in the 
previous paragraph, the EPA evaluated subcategorizing by kiln size and 
determined it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to 
subcategorize in this case. This subcategorization provides additional 
flexibility for small tunnel kilns, many of which are operated by small 
businesses. Therefore, the final MACT floor limits for PM as a 
surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals are based on the best performing 
12 percent of the sources in each of the kiln size subcategories with 
valid test data (i.e., 12 percent of the data available).
    The EPA also proposed two alternative equivalent limits, calculated 
based on the same best performing sources ranked by lb/ton, then using 
those units' concentration or lb/hr data to calculate the floor. During 
the public comment period, the EPA received comments that each 
alternative limit should be calculated according to a separate ranking 
based on the specific unit of measure. Upon further analysis of the 
data sets for each unit of measure, the EPA has found that there are 
some differences in the top ranked sources between each unit of measure 
data set and thus finds the alternative limits expressed on their own 
unit of measure data set ranking to be the most indicative of that data 
set's MACT floor. Therefore, the EPA re-ranked the data for each unit 
of measurement in each kiln size subcategory separately. The final 
alternative equivalent limits are based on the top 12 percent of the 
data available in each subcategory according to these revised rankings. 
In other words, the concentration floor is based on the ranking of the 
concentration data, and the lb/hr floor is based on the ranking of the 
lb/hr data. Each floor is based on the best performing units for that 
unit of measurement. In addition, the final lb/hr non-Hg HAP metals 
alternative limit is based on a ranking of the non-Hg HAP metals data 
rather than the use of conversion factors applied to the PM lb/ton 
floor limit, as was done at proposal.
3. Variability Calculation Based on Hg Raw Material Data
    At proposal, the EPA developed Hg MACT floors based on the best 
performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., the lowest emitting sources of 
Hg emissions from test data). However, commenters identified that the 
Hg comes from the raw materials used and the Hg content can vary by 
location, even within the same quarry. The EPA did not account for this 
inherent variability at proposal. The Brick Industry Association (BIA) 
coordinated with several BSCP facilities to test the Hg content of the 
raw materials used and provided the data to the EPA. The EPA mapped the 
facilities and quarry locations provided by BIA to identify two 
distinct quarry locations, an Oklahoma deposit and an Ohio deposit, for 
use in the development of a Hg raw material variability factor. The 
data from these two deposit locations were incorporated into the upper 
prediction limit (UPL) equation. Please see ``Mercury Content of 
Oklahoma and Ohio Shale Deposits Supplying the Brick Industry'' and 
``Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 
Brick and Structural Clay Products'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0291 for more information about the data and variability factor.
4. Startup and Shutdown Procedures
    The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown for tunnel kilns with and without APCD. These standards 
set a minimum temperature above which the exhaust must be vented 
through an APCD (if applicable) and below which no product could be 
introduced to the kiln (400[emsp14][deg]F for startup and 
300[emsp14][deg]F for shutdown). Industry commenters indicated that the 
exhaust of some kilns never reaches the specific temperatures proposed 
by the EPA, and that some product must be introduced to the kiln during 
startup to heat the kiln enough for full production. The EPA evaluated 
these comments and agrees that the proposed standards do not actually 
represent the work practices representative of the best performing 
kilns. The intent of the proposed standards was to represent work 
practices of the best performing kilns to minimize emissions by 
limiting the amount of brick being fired before the kiln reaches full 
production and limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being 
routed to the APCD, if applicable. As noted at proposal, the standards 
were based on information received through the 2010 EPA survey. The EPA 
received additional information following proposal on the procedures 
used during periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns that 
are more representative of the best performing kilns.
    Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for 
periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles 
as the proposed standards but are representative of how kilns actually 
perform during startup. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD 
temperature as 400[emsp14][deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or 
operator to

[[Page 65486]]

determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does 
not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the 
product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before 
the kiln can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying 
that no product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA 
is requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate 
needed to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that 
this startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust 
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln 
temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that no 
additional product can be introduced once the kiln exhaust falls below 
the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln 
temperature profile.

B. What are the significant changes since proposal for the Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP?

1. Changes to the Data Set
    After proposal, a public commenter identified a transcription error 
in the production rate for the PM and Hg stack tests for one floor tile 
roller kiln. The production rate was corrected, and the PM and Hg lb/
ton values were recalculated. In addition, the EPA examined the PM test 
data more closely and found that a number of the EPA Method 5 test runs 
had probe or filter temperatures outside of the range of acceptable 
values. EPA Method 5 specifies that the temperature should be 
maintained at 248  25[emsp14][deg]F (i.e., between 223 and 
273[emsp14][deg]F). Test runs with temperatures outside that range were 
removed from the data set. (See the memorandum ``Test Data Used in Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0290 for more information on this analysis.)
    During the public comment period, the sanitaryware manufacturing 
company that provided all of the data used for the sanitaryware tunnel 
kiln MACT floors clarified that the production rates they provided in 
their CAA section 114 survey response are in terms of ``greenware 
fired'' into the kiln rather than ``fired product'' coming out of the 
kiln (as requested in the section 114 survey). Therefore, to be 
consistent with the data, the final emission limits for PM as a 
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and Hg from sanitaryware tunnel kilns 
are in terms of lb/ton of greenware fired rather than lb/ton of product 
fired (as proposed).
    Finally, in response to comments requesting a change in the format 
of the emission limits for dioxins/furans, the EPA recalculated the 
emissions for each test run in units of ng/kg of throughput 
(specifically, ``fired product'' for ceramic tile roller kilns, 
``greenware fired'' for sanitaryware tunnel kilns, and ``throughput 
processed'' for ceramic tile press dryers and spray dryers). The MACT 
floors were then recalculated using those data, and the final emission 
limits for dioxins/furans for clay ceramics sources are in units of ng/
kg rather than concentration as proposed.
2. Startup and Shutdown Procedures
    The EPA proposed work practice standards during periods of startup 
and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, 
ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with and 
without APCD. These standards set a minimum temperature above which the 
exhaust must be vented through an APCD (if applicable) and below which 
no product could be introduced to the kiln or dryer (400[emsp14][deg]F 
for startup and 300[emsp14][deg]F for shutdown). One industry commenter 
indicated that the exhaust of some dryers never reach the specific 
temperatures proposed by the EPA. The EPA evaluated the comment and 
agrees that the proposed standards are not actually representative of 
the best performing dryers.
    Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work practice standards for 
periods of startup and shutdown that are based upon the same principles 
as the proposed standards but more accurately reflect the best 
performing sources. Instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD 
temperature as 400[emsp14][deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or 
operator to determine the minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a 
kiln or dryer does not have an APCD, the owner or operator is required 
to determine the product-specific kiln or dryer temperature profile 
that must be achieved before the kiln or dryer can reach full 
production. In addition, instead of specifying that no product can be 
introduced to the kiln or dryer, the EPA is requiring the owner or 
operator to determine the production rate needed to start up the kiln 
or dryer. The final startup standards specify that this startup 
production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln or dryer exhaust 
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln 
or dryer temperature profile. The final shutdown standards specify that 
no additional throughput can be introduced once the kiln or dryer 
exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-
specific kiln or dryer temperature profile.

C. What are the changes to monitoring requirements since proposal?

    A number of changes have been made to the monitoring requirements 
for the BSCP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP in response to 
comments on the proposed rule. These changes are summarized in Table 6 
of this preamble. Further details about the basis for these changes are 
provided in the response-to-comments documents for the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, 
available in Docket Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 (Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 (BSCP Manufacturing).

  Table 6--Summary of Changes to Monitoring Requirements Since Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Monitoring requirements
           Sources           -------------------------------------------
                                    Proposal            Promulgation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP or clay ceramics kilns   To demonstrate        To demonstrate
 equipped with a wet           compliance with       compliance with
 scrubber.                     acid gas standard:    acid gas standard:
                               Monitor       Monitor
                               scrubber liquid pH.   scrubber liquid pH
                               Monitor       Maintain at
                               scrubber chemical     or above highest
                               feed rate (if         average ph during
                               applicable).          acid gas test
                               Maintain at
                               or above average pH/
                               feed rate during
                               acid gas test.

[[Page 65487]]

 
                              To demonstrate        To demonstrate
                               compliance with non-  compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals         Hg HAP metals and
                               standard:             acid gas standards:
                               Monitor       Monitor
                               scrubber pressure     scrubber liquid
                               drop..                flow rate.
                               Maintain at   Maintain at
                               or above average      or above highest
                               pressure drop         average flow rate
                               during PM/non-Hg      during PM/non-Hg
                               HAP metals test..     HAP metals and acid
                                                     gas tests.
                              To demonstrate
                               compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals and
                               acid gas standards:
                               Monitor
                               scrubber liquid
                               flow rate..
                               Maintain at
                               or above average
                               flow rate during PM/
                               non-Hg HAP metals
                               and acid gas tests..
BSCP kilns with no add-on     To demonstrate        To demonstrate
 control.                      compliance with non-  compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals         Hg HAP metals
                               standard:             standard:
                               Perform       Perform
                               daily, 15-minute VE   daily, 15-minute VE
                               observations..        observations
                               If VE are     If VE are
                               observed, initiate    observed, promptly
                               and complete          conduct an opacity
                               corrective actions..  test
                                                     If opacity
                                                     greater than 10%
                                                     are observed,
                                                     initiate and
                                                     complete corrective
                                                     actions
Clay ceramics kilns with no   To demonstrate        To demonstrate
 add-on control, or            compliance with       compliance with
 intending to comply with      dioxins/furans        dioxins/furans
 dioxin/furan standard         standard:             standard:
 without an ACI system.        Monitor       Monitor
                               kiln operating        kiln stack
                               temperature..         temperature
                               Maintain at   Maintain at
                               or above average      or below highest
                               operating             stack temperature
                               temperature during    during dioxin/furan
                               dioxin/furan test..   test
------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

    The EPA received a total of 52 public comment letters on the 
proposed BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0291 for the complete public comments.) The EPA received a total of 
seven public comment letters on the proposed Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP. (See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 for the 
complete public comments.) The following sections summarize the major 
public comments received on the proposal and present the EPA's 
responses to those comments.

A. Health-Based Standards

    Comment: Two commenters disagreed with setting standards under CAA 
section 112(d)(4) for emissions of HCl, HF, and Cl2 from new 
and existing BSCP and clay ceramics sources. One commenter questioned 
whether the EPA has the authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) 
standards for these acid gases. The commenter asserted that it would be 
arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to set risk-based standards for 
these pollutants when the EPA previously decided not to set CAA section 
112(d)(4) standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2 in air toxics 
rulemakings for industrial boilers and power plants. For power plants, 
the EPA stated that the agency ``does not have sufficient information 
to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) health-based emission standards and 
we did not receive such data during the comment period.''\1\ The 
commenter noted that the EPA reached a similar conclusion with respect 
to industrial boilers, declining to set risk-based standards because of 
a lack of information on emissions.\2\ The commenter asserted that the 
health and scientific data regarding emissions of acid gases from BSCP 
and clay ceramics plants similarly fail to provide justification for 
setting HBEL for these pollutants. The commenter asserted the EPA must 
instead set MACT standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Responses to Public Comments on National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired 
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units.'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0234-20126.
    \2\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and 
Process Heaters, 75 FR 32006, 32031 (June 4, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the second commenter expressed concern over using CAA 
section 112(d)(4) and health-based risk assessment for setting the HCl, 
HF and Cl2 standards for BSCP Manufacturing and Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing. The commenter noted that this would be the 
first time the EPA used the health-based risk assessment approach under 
CAA section 112(d)(4) to set emission standards for HF and 
Cl2; although the EPA has used this approach in the past to 
establish health-based standards for other source categories, it was 
restricted to ``HCl emissions for discrete units within the facility'' 
(79 FR 75639).
    The commenter supported focusing on pollutants that pose the 
greatest risks but expressed concern that the EPA has not adequately 
established that the approaches used are appropriate. The commenter 
asserted that the EPA's approach represented a far-reaching and 
significant change in the manner in which MACT standards are 
established under CAA section 112(d) and that it was inappropriate for 
the EPA to propose such changes in a rulemaking for individual source 
categories instead of discussing the approach with all affected 
parties. The commenter noted that Congress established section 112 of 
the CAA to rely on a technology-based approach to avoid the gridlock of 
the unsuccessful risk-based methods used before the adoption of the 
1990 CAA Amendments. Accordingly, while the CAA includes language under 
section 112(d)(4) allowing the use of risk in the establishment of 
MACT, it should be used only under limited and very specific 
circumstances, and the commenter stated that the EPA's proposal did not 
adequately make the case for the use of CAA section 112(d)(4).
    Conversely, two other commenters stated that the EPA has clear 
legal authority to set HBEL and ample justification to do so for the 
BSCP source category. The commenters stated that under the terms of 
this provision, the EPA may set an emission standard at a level higher 
than would be required by CAA section 112(d)(4), provided that: (1) The 
pollutant(s) being regulated is a threshold pollutant and (2) the 
standard provides an ample margin of safety. The

[[Page 65488]]

commenters stated that both of these criteria are met in this case.
    The commenters asserted that the proposed standard is consistent 
with Congress's expectations regarding the implementation of CAA 
section 112(d)(4). According to the Senate report accompanying the 
legislation, ``For some pollutants a MACT emission limitation may be 
far more stringent than is necessary to protect public health and the 
environment'' and in such situations, ``[t]o avoid expenditures by 
regulated entities which secure no public health or environmental 
benefit, the Administrator is given discretionary authority to consider 
the evidence for a health threshold higher than MACT at the time the 
standard is under review.'' \3\ The commenters stated that for this 
rulemaking, MACT would result in emission standards that are far more 
stringent than are needed to protect health and the environment and 
asserted that Congress enacted CAA section 112(d)(4) to allow emission 
standards to be tailored to protect public health without imposing 
unreasonable and unnecessary standards on affected sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that we do not have 
the authority to establish CAA section 112(d)(4) standards in this 
rulemaking. The EPA also disagrees that the decision to establish CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standards is inconsistent with our decisions on other 
rulemakings. The commenters' more detailed arguments and the EPA's 
responses are provided in the remainder of this section.
1. Health Thresholds
    Comment: One commenter stated that a pollutant is not a threshold 
pollutant under CAA section 112(d)(4) unless the EPA establishes that 
it cannot cause cancer at any level of exposure. The commenter asserted 
that HCl, HF, and Cl2 do not have already-established safe 
health thresholds and the EPA's proposed standards would not provide 
``an ample margin of safety.''
    Conversely, two commenters agreed with the EPA that the available 
health data indicate that HCl, HF, and Cl2 are all threshold 
pollutants. The commenters stated that the data show that each of these 
pollutants has a discernible exposure threshold below which adverse 
human health effects are not expected to occur; in addition, none of 
the available data suggest that these pollutants reasonably should be 
expected to act as a carcinogen or mutagen, or exhibit a mode of action 
that would result in non-threshold effects.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the first commenter regarding HCl, 
HF and Cl2 not having thresholds accepted by the scientific 
community, and we acknowledge the support of the other two commenters. 
The EPA's conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold 
pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered 
in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is 
agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals 
across agencies, i.e., the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System 
(IRIS) Program, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) and the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 
The toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer 
toxicity assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely 
vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer 
review processes before they are published. In addition, the Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) has endorsed the use of the reference values 
derived by these sources to support the EPA's risk assessments in the 
residual risk and technology review (RTR) program.
    Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been 
classified as a carcinogen or as ``suggestive of the potential to be 
carcinogenic,'' individually or in combination, by existing 
authoritative bodies, including EPA, CalEPA, International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD), and the European Community. In light of the absence 
of evidence of carcinogenic risk for any of these pollutants, and the 
evidence of an existing threshold below which HCl, HF and 
Cl2 are not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA 
considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA 
section 112(d)(4) for these pollutants. The existing health effects 
evidence on HCl, HF and Cl2 that provide support for this 
determination is described below.
    Potential health effects of HCl:
     There are limited studies on the carcinogenic potential of 
HCl in humans. The occupational data are limited to a couple of studies 
(Steenland et al., 1988, Beaumont et al., 1986)\4,5\ where the subjects 
were exposed to a mixture of acid gases (mainly sulfuric acid)and other 
chemicals (including metals) that may have contained HCl. These studies 
failed to separate potential exposure of HCl from exposure to other 
substances shown to have carcinogenic activity and are therefore not 
appropriate to evaluate the carcinogenic potential of HCl. Another 
occupational study failed to show evidence of association between 
exposure to HCl and lung cancer among chemical manufacturing plant 
employees showing that there is no evidence that HCl is a human 
carcinogen.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Steenland, K., T. Schnorr, J. Beaumont, W. Halperin, T. 
Bloom. 1988. Incidence of laryngeal cancer and exposure to acid 
mists. Br. J. of Ind. Med. 45: 766-776.
    \5\ Beaumont, J.J., J. Leveton, K. Knox, T. Bloom, T. McQuiston, 
M Young, R. Goldsmith, N.K. Steenland, D. Brown, W.E. Halperin. 
1987. Lung cancer mortality in workers exposed to sulfuric acid mist 
and other acid mists. JNCI. 79: 911-921.
    \6\ Bond G.G., Flores G.H., Stafford B.A., Olsen G.W. Lung 
cancer and hydrogen chloride exposure: results from a nested case-
control study of chemical workers. 1991. J Occup Med; 33(9), 958-61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Consistent with the human data, chronic inhalation studies 
in animals have reported no carcinogenic responses after chronic 
exposure to HCl (Albert et al., 1982; Sellakumar et al., 1985).\7,8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Albert, R.E., A.R. Sellakumar, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. 
Nelson and C.A. Snyder. 1982. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen 
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 
68(4): 597-603.
    \8\ Sellakumar, A.R., C.A. Snyder, J.J. Solomon and R.E. Albert. 
1985. Carcinogenicity for formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride in 
rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 81: 401-406.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Hydrogen chloride has not been demonstrated to be 
genotoxic. The genotoxicity database consists of two studies showing 
false positive results potentially associated with low pH in the test 
system (Morita et al., 1992; Cifone et al., 1987).\9,10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Morita, T., T. Nagaki., I. Fukuda, K. Okumura. 1992. 
Clastogenicity of low pH to various cultured mammalian cells. Mutat. 
Res. 268: 297-305.
    \10\ Cifone, M.A., B. Myhr, A. Eiche, G. Bolcsfoldi. 1987. 
Effect of pH shifts on the mutant frequency at the thymidine kinase 
locus in mouse lymphoma L5178Y TK=/- cells. Mutat. Res. 189: 39-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Chronic exposure to HCl at concentrations below the 
current IRIS reference concentration (RfC) are not expected to cause 
adverse effects.
    Potential health effects of HF:
     There are a limited number of studies investigating the 
carcinogenic potential of HF. These studies are unreliable on the issue 
of possible carcinogenicity of HF and/or fluorides, in general, because 
of many confounding factors (e.g., exposure to multiple unknown 
chemicals and smoking habits not accounted for) and because no 
breakdown was done by type of fluoride exposure.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for 
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for 
Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine. 2003. Available at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf.

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

[[Page 65489]]

     Chronic exposure at or below the current CalEPA reference 
exposure level (REL) is not expected to cause adverse effects.
    Potential health effects of Cl2:
     The existing studies of workers in the chemical industry 
have not found any evidence that Cl2 is carcinogenic.
     Chronic bioassays in rodents and long-term studies in non-
human primates have shown no evidence for carcinogenicity in 
respiratory tract as target tissue or other tissues.
     Chronic exposure to Cl2 at concentrations below 
the current ATSDR minimal risk level (MRL) are not expected to cause 
adverse effects.
    We disagree with the comment that the EPA's proposed HBEL does not 
provide an ample margin of safety, for the following reasons.
    First, the limit is based on the facility in the source category 
with the highest potential exposure to nearby residents. The HBEL at 
this single facility reflects a ratio of exposure concentration over 
the reference value of up to 1 (at an exposure concentration below the 
RfC is considered to be health protective). As such, exposures will not 
exceed the established health threshold at this facility. In addition, 
the exposure estimate used to set the limit is very health protective 
in that it assumes constant exposure for 70 years. Actual exposures 
from emissions from this facility are expected to be lower (i.e., 
because persons will spend time away from home). This conservative 
exposure scenario is consistent with the ``ample margin of safety'' 
requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4).
    Second, the ratios at the other facilities (not the highest 
facility noted above) from this source category are lower and in most 
cases significantly lower, with approximately 90 percent of these 
facilities having a ratio of 0.5 or less, which provides a further 
increased margin of safety beyond the ample margin of safety 
established at the facility with the highest potential exposure.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, according to the EPA, an RfC is 
merely ``an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 
magnitude)'' of an exposure that is ``likely to be'' without health 
risks.\12\ By definition, this ``estimate'' is not by itself a ``safe 
threshold'' of exposure that ``presents no risk'' of adverse health 
effects. The commenter stated the EPA cannot lawfully use a pollutant's 
RfC as a default ``safe threshold'' under CAA section 112(d)(4) because 
an RfC does not pose ``no'' health risks, as the commenter asserted the 
CAA requires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. EPA, Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/glossary.htm (last updated Apr. 28, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that the EPA is authorized to set risk-based 
standards only where it has direct evidence of the level at which there 
are no adverse effects observed and that proceeding with HBEL without a 
no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) is unlawful. Another commenter 
stated the use of health-based standards should only be considered for 
HAP that have been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA and are contained in 
the IRIS database with a high level of confidence in the RfC. With 
respect to HCl, the IRIS confidence levels are ``Low'' for the 
inhalation RfC. In ``Carcinogenicity Assessment for Lifetime 
Exposure,'' IRIS states, ``This substance/agent has not undergone a 
complete evaluation and determination under the EPA's IRIS program for 
evidence of human carcinogenic potential.'' \13\ In the proposal, the 
EPA acknowledged that ``[t]he EPA has not classified HCl for 
carcinogenicity'' and ``[l]ittle research has been conducted on its 
carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75639).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. EPA, Integrated Risk Information System--Hydrogen 
chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm#coninhal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that IARC concluded that ``[t]here is 
inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity in humans of hydrochloric 
acid,'' that ``[t]here is inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity 
in experimental animals of hydrochloric acid,'' and that HCl ``is not 
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.'' \14\ The commenter 
stated that the EPA did not identify any evidence that HCl is not 
carcinogenic and noted that the only study the EPA referenced is ``one 
occupational study'' that ``found no evidence of carcinogenicity'' (79 
FR 75639). Because the EPA did not provide a citation for the study or 
otherwise identify it or discuss it, the public are unable to 
adequately comment on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ IARC, Hydrochloric Acid (Monograph), available at http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol54/mono54-8.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA's risk assessments are supported by the best 
available toxicity assessments from authoritative bodies including the 
EPA's IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The SAB has endorsed the use of 
the reference values derived by these sources to support EPA's risk 
assessments in the RTR program. These authoritative bodies derive 
health protective reference values at or below which no adverse effects 
are expected to occur. As mentioned previously in this section, the 
toxicity assessments, which include noncancer and/or cancer toxicity 
assessments, provided by these authoritative bodies are widely vetted 
through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer review 
processes before they are published.
    The commenter stated that there is not a NOAEL and that based on 
that, the EPA cannot set a HBEL for HCl. The EPA toxicity assessments 
consider the entire toxicity database for specific chemicals and are 
conducted following well-established EPA guidance on how to assess 
potential hazard of a chemical and conduct dose response assessments. 
These assessments include the derivation of an RfC, which is likely to 
be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human 
population (including susceptible subgroups and all life stages) over a 
lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from a 
NOAEL, lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) or benchmark dose, 
with uncertainty factors applied to reflect the limitations of the data 
used. In particular for HCl, the point of departure for the RfC (15 
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m \3\)) was selected from chronic 
inhalation studies in rodents and was adjusted to reflect a lifetime of 
exposure (2.7 mg/m \3\) and extrapolated to a human equivalent 
concentration (6.1 mg/m \3\) based on differences in the effects of a 
gas in the respiratory system between rats and humans. Uncertainty 
factors (total of 300, yielding an RfC of 0.02 mg/m \3\) were applied 
to account for interspecies differences, intraspecies extrapolation and 
extrapolation from a LOAEL to NOAEL. It is important to note that in 
the IRIS assessment for HCl it is stated that a reasonable estimate of 
the NOAEL in humans is in the range of 0.3-3 mg/m \3\. This estimate 
resulted from an expert review workshop and is based on examination of 
the HCl literature, a comparison with sulfuric acid toxicity, and the 
judgment of those in attendance at the review workshop. In addition, 
this value is generally consistent with identified NOAELs in subchronic 
animal studies (OECD, 2002). Based on this information, we are 
confident that the IRIS HCl RfC represents a conservative health 
protective benchmark below which adverse health effects are not 
expected to occur.
    As part of the risk analysis conducted to support this rule, the 
EPA thoroughly evaluated all the available and relevant scientific 
evidence on HCl (discussed previously in this section) and concluded 
that there is no evidence that HCl is a carcinogen and that this 
information is sufficient for this regulatory determination. The 2002

[[Page 65490]]

OECD assessment of HCl drew similar conclusions:

    For genetic toxicity, a negative result has been shown in the 
Ames test. A positive result in a chromosome aberration test using 
Hamster ovary cells is considered to be an artifact due to the low 
pH. For carcinogenicity, no pre-neoplastic or neoplastic nasal 
lesions were observed in a 128-week inhalation study with SD male 
rats at 10 ppm hydrogen chloride gas. No evidence of treatment 
related carcinogenicity was observed in other animal studies 
performed by inhalation, oral or dermal administration. In humans, 
no association between hydrogen chloride exposure and tumor 
incidence was observed.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ United Nations Environment Programme 2002, Organisation for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Screening Information 
Dataset (SIDS) Initial Assessment Report for SIAM 15, Hydrogen 
Chloride: CAS N[deg]:7647-01-0. October 25, 2002. http://www.inchem.org/documents/sids/sids/7647010.pdf.

Additionally, the EPA conducted a screening level literature review in 
2003 and did not identify any critical studies that would change the 
conclusions in the 1995 HCl IRIS assessment. Based on the information 
available, the EPA concludes that this information is sufficient to 
support setting an HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) for HCl.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA proposed to base the HCl 
emission standards on the HCl RfC and argued it is unlawful to do so 
where the EPA has ``low confidence'' in the RfC. The commenter stated 
that it is arbitrary to claim there is an established, safe health 
threshold based on a reference value in which the EPA has low 
confidence. According to the commenter, having low confidence in the 
RfC is the same as admitting that the EPA has ``low confidence'' in the 
proposed emission standards. The fact that the EPA was unable to 
determine a no-effect level in a robust and reliable scientific study 
demonstrates concern that chronic exposure to even very low levels of 
HCl can compromise health, especially in sensitive subpopulations. 
Therefore, the EPA cannot state that HCl presents no risk of adverse 
health effects.
    The commenter stated that the EPA used a non-cancer health 
threshold for HCl based on a chronic inhalation study on rats.\16\ The 
EPA has determined the RfC to be 0.02 mg/m\3\ (0.0134 part per million 
(ppm)), based on rat studies by Albert, et al., demonstrating 
hyperplasia of the nasal mucosa (the protective cell lining of the 
nasal tract and cavities), larynx, and trachea.\17\ The commenter 
asserted that because these rat studies failed to identify a NOAEL, the 
EPA based the RfC on a LOAEL (i.e., the lowest dose in the study that 
induced a measurable adverse health effect in treated animals). The 
commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-
based standards where a NOAEL has not been determined; at a minimum, 
Congress required that a threshold be based on the `` `no observable 
[adverse] effects level' (NOAEL) below which human exposure is 
presumably `safe.' '' \18\ The EPA has similarly recognized that ``the 
legislative history of CAA section 112(d)(4) indicates that a health-
based emission limit under CAA section 112(d)(4) should be set at the 
level at which no observable effects occur'' (79 FR 75642). The 
commenter stated that, if there is no established non-zero threshold 
level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has no deleterious 
health effects, then the EPA cannot be certain that exposure to the 
pollutant at a given level presents no harm. The commenter stated that 
without a NOAEL, no established threshold can exist, and the EPA does 
not have the authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) to set an HBEL for 
HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Hydrogen Chloride.
    \17\ Albert, R.E., et al., Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen 
chloride induction of nasal cancer in rats, 68(4) J. Natl. Cancer 
Inst. 597 (1982).
    \18\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA's chemical-specific toxicity assessments are 
derived using the EPA's risk assessment guidelines and approaches that 
are well established and vetted through the scientific community, and 
follow rigorous peer review processes.\19\ The RTR program gives 
preference to EPA values (i.e., RfCs for noncancer assessments) for use 
in risk assessments and uses other values, as appropriate, when those 
values are derived with methods and peer review processes consistent 
with those followed by the EPA. The approach for selecting appropriate 
toxicity values for use in the RTR Program has been endorsed by the 
SAB.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). IRIS Guidance 
documents available at http://www.epa.gov/iris/backgrd.html.
    \20\ Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, 
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA's draft entitled, ``Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum 
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010. 
Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's RfCs are assigned confidence levels of high, medium and 
low based on the completeness of the supporting database. High 
confidence RfCs are considered less likely to change substantially with 
the collection of additional information, while low confidence RfCs are 
recognized as being based on less complete data and so may be subject 
to change if additional data is developed.\21\ It is important to note 
that a ``low confidence'' label does not indicate that the EPA believes 
that the RfC is unreliable. For a given chemical, if there are not 
adequate or appropriate data with which to derive an RfC, one is not 
calculated. All RfCs, even those with low confidence, are appropriate 
for regulatory use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ U.S. EPA Air: Fate, Exposure, and Risk Analysis Web site. 
Air Toxics Assessment Reference Library, Volume 1. 2004. Available 
at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/volume_1_reflibrary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with the comment that without a NOAEL, no established 
threshold can exist. The EPA toxicity assessments for specific 
chemicals are conducted using well-established EPA guidance on how to 
assess potential hazard of chemicals and how to conduct dose response 
assessments to arrive at a chemical concentration below which we do not 
expect adverse effects to occur (i.e., threshold). These assessments 
include the derivation of a RfC which is likely to be without 
appreciable risk of adverse health effects to the human population 
(including susceptible subgroups and all life stages [e.g., children]) 
over a lifetime. According to EPA guidelines, RfCs can be derived from 
a NOAEL, LOAEL or benchmark dose, with uncertainty factors applied to 
account for relevant extrapolations, including extrapolation from LOAEL 
to NOAEL, and to reflect additional limitations of the data used.\22 
23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ U.S. EPA. 1994. Methods for Derivation of Inhalation 
Reference Concentrations and Application of Inhalation Dosimetry. 
EPA/600/8-90/066F, Oct 1994. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0160.
    \23\ U.S. EPA. 2002. A Review of the Reference Dose and 
Reference Concentration Processes. EPA/630/P-02/002F, Dec 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the studies the EPA relied upon 
only investigated respiratory effects and did not consider other ways 
HCl could cause harm. The commenter noted the EPA has acknowledged that 
the RfC is an ``inhalation RfC'' and represents the health risk and 
toxicity associated with the inhalation pathway of exposure only (75 FR 
32031). The commenter stated that the EPA identified no studies that 
indicate whether exposure to HCl--at 0.02 mg/m\3\ or any other 
concentration--harms other bodily systems.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the agency 
investigated only respiratory effects and that it did not consider 
other ways in which HCl can cause harm. In the principal studies

[[Page 65491]]

upon which the RfC is based, a complete necropsy was performed on all 
animals. Histologic sections were prepared from the nasal cavity, lung, 
trachea, larynx, liver, kidneys, testes, and other organs where gross 
pathological signs were present. Due to the reactive nature of HCl, 
however, portal of entry effects are anticipated to occur first and at 
lower exposure concentrations. The IRIS assessment \24\ for HCl 
included a comprehensive review of all the available toxicity data for 
HCl. No effects are expected to occur at exposures of HCl at or below 
the level of the RfC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ IRIS Summary for Hydrogen Chloride. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm (Accessed on July 24, 2015)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that the RfC is an inadequate basis 
for establishing a threshold because it ``did not reflect any potential 
cumulative or synergistic effects of an individual's exposure to 
multiple HAP or to a combination of HAP and criteria pollutants'' and 
noted that the EPA recognized the potential for cumulative and 
synergistic effects was important in its consideration of risk-based 
standards in two recent rulemakings (see 75 FR 32031 and 76 FR 25050).
    The commenter stated that there is no ``established'' threshold at 
the RfC for HCl, because the CalEPA has determined a lower and more 
health-protective value than the RfC. The EPA's chronic inhalation RfC 
is 0.02 mg/m\3\, while California's chronic inhalation REL is 0.009 mg/
m\3\.\25\ The commenter stated that CalEPA's REL is based on the same 
science as the IRIS RfC but was developed more recently than the EPA's 
RfC, which was last revised in 1995.\26\ The REL is ``the concentration 
level at or below which no health effects are anticipated in the 
general human population,'' and the EPA's process for developing RELs 
``is similar to that used by EPA to develop IRIS values and 
incorporates significant external scientific peer review.'' \27\ The 
commenter asserted that the EPA and CalEPA disagree about the 
concentration of HCl exposure at which no health effects are expected 
and that the disagreement stems from how to account for uncertainty and 
variability in interpreting the study results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 
(OEHHA), OEHHA Acute, 8-Hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels 
(REL)s, http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/Allrels.html (last accessed Mar. 
12, 2015).
    \26\ California OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries Using 
the Previous Version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines at 
311 (1999), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2008/AppendixD3_final.pdf.
    \27\ EPA, Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission 
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing Source Category, May 19, 2014, Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291-0132.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fact that two agencies have determined significantly different 
``safe'' levels, the commenter contended, demonstrates as a matter of 
law that there is no ``established'' health threshold for HCl and 
precludes the EPA from lawfully setting CAA section 112(d)(4) standards 
for HCl. The commenter stated that the statute requires that a health 
threshold ``has been established'' and argued the legislative history 
indicates Congress intended for CAA section 112(d)(4) limits to be used 
only where there was a ``well-established'' level that presents ``no 
risk'' of adverse effects and about which there was no ``dispute.'' 
\28\ The commenter asserted that Congress did not grant the 
Administrator the authority to establish the threshold itself and that 
the EPA does not have authority to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards 
in situations where there is disagreement among expert agencies as to 
what the correct health threshold should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter asserted that by failing to address the CalEPA REL, 
the EPA contravened its obligation under administrative law to address 
significant evidence that detracts from the agency's conclusion. The 
commenter stated that for the EPA to rely solely on the IRIS RfC, the 
EPA would need to explain why the CalEPA REL is incorrect and why the 
IRIS RfC reflects the best available science and risk assessment 
practices, particularly when the IRIS RfC and CalEPA REL thresholds are 
based on the same science and when the EPA relied upon CalEPA RELs at 
several other points in its proposal (e.g., the EPA used the CalEPA REL 
for acute inhalation exposure to HCl as the basis for its CAA section 
112(d)(4) standards). If the EPA considers CalEPA's acute REL for HCl 
to reflect a reliable value, then the commenter stated it is arbitrary 
to disregard CalEPA's chronic REL for HCl. The commenter further noted 
the EPA relied upon the CalEPA chronic REL for HF in order to determine 
a threshold for HF and argued that using the CalEPA REL for HF but not 
for HCl is arbitrary.
    Response: At an initial point, with respect to the comment that 
different agencies have identified different thresholds and so ``as a 
matter of law'' there is no ``established'' health threshold for HCl, 
the EPA disagrees that the phrase ``has been established'' in CAA 
section 112(d)(4) means that there is universal agreement on the health 
threshold level and that differences between CalEPA and the EPA 
demonstrate that no health threshold ``has been established.'' The 
statute does not clearly identify who must establish the health 
threshold or how such threshold should be established. In the absence 
of such specificity in the statute, the EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(4) 
to authorize the EPA to set health-based limits where, in the EPA's 
expert judgment, there is a health threshold for the pollutant below 
which no adverse health effects are expected to occur.
    Further, we disagree with the comment that there is no established 
threshold at the RfC because CalEPA developed a reference value at a 
lower concentration than the RfC. The approaches used by both agencies 
are similar and assume a threshold below which adverse health effects 
would not be expected; however, there are some differences between 
agencies in methods for deriving the estimate for a threshold that may 
affect the final resulting values. Both agencies use the best available 
science to support their risk assessments. The EPA has an approach for 
selecting appropriate health benchmark values and, in general, this 
approach places greater weight on the EPA derived health benchmarks 
than those from other agencies. The approach favoring EPA benchmarks 
(when they exist) has been endorsed by the SAB and ensures use of 
values most consistent with well-established and scientifically-based 
EPA science policy.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Science Advisory Board. Memorandum to Lisa Jackson, 
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of EPA's draft entitled, ``Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: For Review by 
the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum 
Refining Sources and Portland Cement Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010. 
Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically for HCl, we selected the IRIS RfC for HCl as the most 
appropriate chronic noncancer health threshold to use for this rule. In 
the case of HF, there is not an EPA RfC available and the only chronic 
reference value from an authoritative source and appropriate for use in 
this rule is the California REL.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's decision to 
set a HBEL for HF. These commenters contended the EPA does not have the 
authority to set HF standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) because the 
scientific data supporting the EPA's findings regarding the 
carcinogenic potential of HF are insufficient and unreliable. Three 
commenters asserted that the EPA should not adopt HBEL for

[[Page 65492]]

HF due to uncertainty about the vulnerabilities of children, infants, 
and fetuses to HF exposures at the REL concentration used by the EPA to 
set the HF emissions standards. Two commenters noted that the proposal 
states, ``There is limited/equivocal evidence of the carcinogenic 
potential of HF'' (79 FR 75641) and ``[t]he EPA has not classified HF 
for carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75640) and questioned how the agency could 
be confident that HF is eligible to be a threshold pollutant if its 
status as a non-carcinogen is uncertain.
    One commenter noted that the EPA failed to identify an established, 
well-defined health-based threshold, below which HF does not cause 
cancer, that is based on reliable science and has a high level of 
certainty. The EPA has stated that ``carcinogenicity via inhalation of 
fluoride is not considered to be likely by most investigators reporting 
in the existing literature'' (79 FR 75641) and that the EPA ``has not 
classified HF for carcinogenicity'' (79 FR 75640). The commenter stated 
that it is possible that HF causes cancer because increased rates of 
cancer have been observed in workers exposed to a mixture of chemicals 
that included fluoride \30\ and noted that the EPA acknowledged data 
suggesting that those with occupational exposure to HF have greater 
than normal occurrences of cancer.\31\ The commenter stated that, 
because of the data showing possible carcinogenic effect, as well as 
the data showing mutagenic effect in animals, the EPA does not have 
enough evidence to classify HF as a threshold pollutant with any level 
of confidence. The commenter stated that the EPA failed to explain how 
it weighed the conflicting evidence of HF's carcinogenicity and 
considered EPA's conclusion to be arbitrary and capricious. Three 
commenters noted that the EPA does not consider HF in its IRIS database 
but noted that HF breaks down into fluorine, which is included in 
IRIS.\32\ One commenter stated that IRIS indicates no data are 
available to determine an RfC for chronic inhalation exposure to 
fluorine.\33\ This commenter further noted that IARC ``has determined 
that the carcinogenicity of fluoride to humans is not classifiable.'' 
\34\ Another commenter stated that health-based standards should be 
considered only for HAP that are contained in IRIS with a high level of 
confidence in the RfC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Gallerani, M., et al., Systemic and topical effects of 
intradermal hydrofluoric acid, 16 Am. J. Emer. Med. 521, 522 (1998).
    \31\ EPA, Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics Web site: 
Hydrogen Fluoride, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hydrogen.html 
(last updated Oct. 18, 2013).
    \32\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Fluorine (Soluble 
Fluoride) (CASRN 7782-41-4), http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm 
(last updated Oct. 31, 2014).
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen 
Fluoride, and Fluorine at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter noted that although the National Air Toxics 
Assessment (NATA) database does not contain HF,\35\ the database does 
provide evidence that HF has a mutagenic effect in animals. This 
conclusion was supported by other scientific reviews \36\ and by the 
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which states that ``the overall 
evidence from human animal studies is mixed'' on the question of 
whether fluoride is carcinogenic when inhaled.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ EPA, National Scale Air Toxics Assessment Overview: The 33 
Pollutants, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata/34poll.html (last 
updated Jan. 6, 2015).
    \36\ See, e.g., National Research Council of the National 
Academies, Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for 
Selected Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91-92, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf.
    \37\ National Research Council of the National Academies, 
Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected 
Submarine Contaminants vol.3 at 91-92, available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap12741/pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four commenters questioned the EPA's reliance on a CalEPA risk 
assessment, noting that the CalEPA REL is based on a study of adults 
exposed to HF in the workplace \38\ and therefore, did not include any 
children. Two commenters stated that a 10X ``intraspecies'' factor was 
applied to account for variability among humans, but noted that CalEPA 
expressed concern about ``the potentially greater susceptibility of 
children to the effects of inhaled fluorides, considering the rapid 
bone growth in early years.'' \39\ One commenter recommended the EPA 
use an additional default factor of at least 10X to account for 
uncertainty regarding health risks to children, infants, and fetuses. 
The commenter stated that a 10X factor would be consistent with the NAS 
recommendation\40\ and with the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the 
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).\41\ Another commenter stated that 
recent science not considered at the time CalEPA adopted the REL 
provides further support for prior research showing that HF has 
neurodevelopmental effects on children and that children living in 
high-fluoride areas have been observed to have lower IQ scores than 
those living in low-fluoride areas.\42\ The commenter asserted that the 
adverse effects of fluoride on children are likely to be more severe, 
and long-lasting, compared with effects on adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Derryberry O.M., et al., Fluoride exposure and worker 
health-The health status of workers in a fertilizer manufacturing 
plant in relation to fluoride exposure, 6 Arch. Environ. Health. 503 
(1963).
    \39\ OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280.
    \40\ National Research Council of the National Academies, 
Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment, at 190-93 (2009).
    \41\ 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(C) (requiring that, in establishing, 
modifying, leaving in effect, or revoking a tolerance or exemption 
for a pesticide chemical residue, ``for purposes of clause (ii)(I) 
an additional tenfold margin of safety for the pesticide chemical 
residue and other sources of exposure shall be applied'' to protect 
infants and children).
    \42\ See Choi, A.L., et al., Developmental Fluoride 
Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, 120 Envtl. 
Health Perspect. 1362 (Oct. 2012), http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/ 
(reviewing and discussing findings from over 20 studies); Choi, 
A.L., et al., Association of Lifetime Exposure to Fluoride and 
Cognitive Functions in Chinese Children: A Pilot Study, 47 Neurotox. 
& Teratology 96 (Jan.-Feb. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the CalEPA REL is based on a study that 
only examined the increased bone density (skeletal fluorosis) endpoint 
and noted that CalEPA stated that ``[t]he primary uncertainty in the 
study was the lack of a comprehensive health effects examination.'' 
\43\ The commenter stated that the EPA does not know whether 
neurodevelopmental harm, or other health effects, are more sensitive 
than skeletal harm; therefore, the EPA cannot lawfully set a ``safe'' 
threshold at a concentration that poses ``no risk'' of health effects 
with ``an ample margin of safety'' based on a study that lacks ``a 
comprehensive health effects examination.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 280.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter asserted that the EPA has insufficient data 
showing exposure to HF at the REL value ``presents no risk'' of harm to 
other bodily systems. The commenter noted that HF is a possible 
reproductive toxin,\44\ that occupational studies of women exposed to 
fluoride identified increased rates of menstrual irregularities,\45\ 
and that animal studies have found that fluoride impairs reproduction 
and increases the rates of fetal bone and teeth malformation.\46\ In 
addition, chronic inhalation of hydrofluoric acid can cause irritation 
and congestion of the nose and throat

[[Page 65493]]

and bronchitis,\47\ and animal studies found increased rates of kidney 
and liver damage from hydrofluoric acid inhalation.\48\ Further, HF 
readily penetrates the skin, causing deep tissue layer destruction,\49\ 
and ingestion of HF may result in vomiting and abdominal pain, with 
painful necrotic lesions, hemorrhagic gastritis, and pancreatitis 
reported after significant exposure.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Massachusetts 
Chemical Fact Sheet: Hydrofluoric Acid, at 1, available at http://www.turi.org/content/download/3663/44840/file/Fact_Sheet_Hydrofluoric_Acid.pdf.
    \45\ EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health 
Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds, 
EPA/600/8-89/002F (1988).
    \46\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen 
Fluoride and Fluorine; EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review 
of Health Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related 
Compounds.
    \47\ CalEPA, Technical Support Document for the Determination of 
Noncancer Chronic Reference Exposure Levels.
    \48\ EPA, Health Issue Assessment: Summary Review of Health 
Effects Associated with Hydrogen Fluoride and Related Compounds.
    \49\ Burgher, Francois, et al., Experimental 70% hydrofluoric 
acid burns: histological observations in an established human skin 
explants ex vivo model, 30.2 Cutaneous & Ocular Toxicology 100 
(2011).
    \50\ CDC, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH): Hydrogen Fluoride/Hydrofluoric Acid, http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750030.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated the CalEPA REL was developed by CalEPA using 
an outdated version of CalEPA's Hot Spots Risk Assessment Guidelines 
(1999) that has been ``superseded'' by the more recent guidelines 
released in February 2015.\51\ The commenter noted the 1999 version 
required updating in part because it did not include sufficient 
consideration of ``infants and children in assessing risks from air 
toxics.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ OEHHA Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 1; CalEPA, 
OEHHA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program: Guidance Manual for Preparation 
of Health Risk Assessments (Feb. 2015), available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA has not reviewed HF in the IRIS program. However, 
we concur with the two recent authoritative assessments by ATSDR (2003) 
\52\ and the European Union (2002) \53\ that the available evidence 
does not support classifying HF as ``Carcinogenic to Humans,'' ``Likely 
to Be Carcinogenic to Humans'' or as having ``Suggestive Evidence of 
Carcinogenic Potential'' (U.S. EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment (2005)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)--
``Although elevated cancer rates have been reported in some 
occupational groups exposed to hydrogen fluoride and fluoride dusts, 
these studies were not controlled for the multiple substance 
exposures to which industrial workers are generally exposed. Because 
of these multiple exposures and the problem inherent in all 
occupational studies in identifying appropriate reference 
populations, only limited evidence from such studies is specifically 
relevant to the investigation of possible carcinogenic effects of 
long-term dermal exposure to hydrofluoric acid and inhalation 
exposure to hydrogen fluoride and/or fluoride dusts in human beings. 
As noted previously, IARC has determined that the carcinogenicity of 
fluoride to humans is not classifiable.''
    \53\ European Union Risk Assessment Report (2001)--
``Carcinogenicity studies, in which HF has been tested, are not 
available. Studies with NaF may provide insight in the 
carcinogenicity of HF, especially for systemic tumours. With the 
latter substance 4 animal studies have been performed, 2 in which 
NaF was supplied in the drinking water to rats and mice, and two in 
which NaF was administered via the diet, again to rats and mice . . 
. .In the rat drinking water study, equivocal indications for 
osteosarcomas in males were obtained, but the rat diet study was 
negative, despite clear indications of fluoride intoxication. The 
mouse drinking water study was also negative. The mouse diet study 
was confounded by the presence of a retrovirus which may have (co)-
induced the growth of benign osteomas thus thwarting the 
interpretation of the study. In the diet studies (Maurer et al. 
1990; Maurer et al. 1993) bone fluoride levels were higher than in 
the drinking water studies (NTP 1990), while in the diet studies no 
indications for osteosarcomas were obtained. Furthermore, the 
osteomas were considered to be reminiscent of hyperplasias rather 
than true bone neoplasms. It was concluded that the available data 
is sufficient to suggest that fluoride is not a carcinogenic 
substance in animals (Janssen and Knaap 1994) . . . Based on 
epidemiological data IARC (1982) concluded that the evidence for 
carcinogenicity of orally taken fluoride in humans is inadequate. 
Recent studies (cited in CEPA 1993; Janssen and Knaap 1994) did not 
supply evidence of a relationship between fluoride in drinking water 
and cancer mortality, either. US-EPA, reviewing the epidemiological 
data for fluoride, stated that no conclusion can be drawn as to the 
carcinogenicity of fluoride after inhalatory exposure, because in 
all studies available, humans were exposed to other substances as 
well (Thiessen 1988).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the studies cited by the commenter are from exposure to 
fluoride and not from inhalation exposures to HF. Neurodevelopmental 
effects may be relevant to high fluoride exposures, but the existing 
evidence shows these effects may occur at fluoride exposure levels 
beyond those that would cause respiratory effects if HF were the sole 
source of exposure. In the study of Lund (1997),\54\ plasma fluoride 
concentrations were shown to increase in the nanogram per milliliter 
(ng/ml) range from exposures to HF in the mg/m\3\ level (e.g., 
elevations of approximately 20 nanograms fluoride per milliliter in 
plasma resulted from 1-hour exposure to 2 mg/m\3\ HF, with notable 
respiratory and eye irritation effects). Reproductive and developmental 
effects in rats have been noted from experiments \55\ with plasma F 
levels in the 150 ng/ml range maintained for over 4 months. The primary 
issue in causing neurodevelopmental effects (which have yet to be 
quantified) is likely associated with aggregate and cumulative exposure 
from multiple sources of fluorides (e.g., water, food, toothpaste) 
which are greater contributors to total fluoride body burden and 
uncontrollable variables in establishing this rule, which deals with 
exposures to HF only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Lund K, Ekstrand J, Boe J, S[oslash]strand P, and Kongerud 
J. (1997) Exposure to hydrogen fluoride: an experimental study in 
humans of concentrations of fluoride in plasma, symptoms, and lung 
function. Occup Environ Med. 54(1):32-37.
    \55\ Oencue, M, Kocak, A, Karaoz, E; Darici, H; Savilk, E; and 
Gultekin, F (2007) Effect of long-term fluoride exposure on lipid 
peroxidation and histology of testes in first- and second-generation 
rats. Biological Trace Element Research 118:260-268.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also disagrees with the comment that a children's default 
safety factor of 10 should be added to the CalEPA REL for HF. In 
response to the 10X factor enacted by Congress in the FQPA (1996)\56\ 
to the EPA non-cancer reference value derivation, the agency evaluated 
its methods for considering children's risk in the development of 
reference values. As part of its response, the EPA (i.e., the Science 
Policy Council and Risk Assessment Forum) established the RfD/RfC 
Technical Panel to develop a strategy for implementing the FQPA and 
examine the issues relative to protecting children's health and 
application of the 10X safety factor. One of the outcomes of the 
Technical Panel's efforts was an in depth review of a number of issues 
related to the RfD/RfC process (U.S. EPA 2002). The most critical 
aspect in the derivation of a reference value pertaining to the FQPA 
has to do with variation between individual humans and is accounted for 
by a default uncertainty factor when no chemical-specific data are 
available. The EPA reviewed the default UF for inter-human variability 
and found the EPA's default value of 10 adequate for all susceptible 
populations and lifestages, including children and infants. The EPA 
also recommends the use of chemical-specific data in preference to 
default uncertainty factors when available (U.S. EPA, 1994, 2011) and 
is developing Agency guidance to facilitate consistency in the 
development and use of data-derived extrapolation factors for RfCs and 
reference doses (RfDs) (U.S. EPA, 2011).57 58 In agreement 
with the recommendations of the RfC review, CalEPA chronic REL for HF 
was derived using an inter-individual uncertainty factor of 10, which 
is considered adequate by the EPA for accounting for all susceptible 
populations and lifestages, including children and infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticide: Regulating 
Pesticides. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). 1996. Available 
at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/backgrnd.htm.
    \57\ U.S. EPA (1994). Methods for derivation of inhalation 
reference concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. 
(EPA/600/8-90/066F). Research Triangle Park, NC. Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0160.
    \58\ U.S. EPA (2011). Office of the Science Advisor, Risk 
Assessment Forum. Recommended Use of Body Weight\3/4\ as the Default 
Method in Derivation of the Oral Reference Dose. February 2011. EPA/
100/R11/0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that CalEPA's Hot Spots Risk Assessment 
Guidelines

[[Page 65494]]

(1999) have been ``superseded'' by the more recent guidelines released 
in February 2015, the EPA reviewed the February 2015 Guidelines 
information provided by the commenter and concluded that this 
information does not include methods for conducting hazard 
identification and dose response assessments, which are the analyses 
that preclude the derivation of a reference value. Therefore, the 
information provided by the commenter does not apply to the CalEPA REL 
derivation methods.
    The commenter's assertion that the NATA database does not contain 
HF is incorrect; NATA 2005 (cited above by the commenter) does include 
noncancer risk estimates for HF. The HF cancer risks are not included 
in NATA because a quantitative cancer analysis for HF does not exist.
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with the EPA's decision to 
set a HBEL for Cl2 and stated the EPA does not have the 
authority to set Cl2 standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) 
because the EPA does not have reliable scientific data demonstrating a 
``safe'' threshold for Cl2 and has not demonstrated 
Cl2 presents no cancer risk. Two commenters noted that in 
the proposal, the EPA stated that, ``the agency presumptively considers 
Cl2 to be a threshold pollutant.'' The commenters asserted 
that a presumption is not adequate for EPA to justify setting a health-
based standard for Cl2 under CAA section 112(d)(4).
    One commenter stated that it is possible that Cl2 is 
carcinogenic and noted that Cl2 has not undergone a complete 
evaluation and determination of human carcinogenic potential under the 
IRIS program.\59\ The IARC and the Department of Health and Human 
Services (DHHS) have not classified Cl2 gas for human 
carcinogenicity. The commenter stated that the absence of data showing 
carcinogenicity is not the same as data demonstrating that a substance 
is not carcinogenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine, http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0405.htm (last updated Oct. 31, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the commenter, Congress authorized CAA section 
112(d)(4) standards only where a threshold ``has been established.'' In 
other words, there must be an already-established threshold for which 
there is direct evidence that the pollutant presents ``no'' harm at the 
threshold level of exposure, and the law requires ``well-established'' 
factual evidence.\60\ The commenter asserted that the EPA is not 
authorized to set risk-based standards based on a ``presumption'' of 
the existence of a safe level of exposure and that by doing so, the EPA 
would violate the law and fail to ensure adequate protection from the 
health risks of hazardous pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that the EPA cannot set a health threshold for 
Cl2 based on a chronic inhalation study on monkeys because 
that study did not determine a NOAEL. The commenter asserted that CAA 
section 112(d)(4) does not permit risk-based standards where a NOAEL 
has not been determined. The commenter stated that, at a minimum, 
Congress required that a threshold be based on the `` `no observable 
[adverse] effects level' (NOAEL) below which human exposure is 
presumably `safe.' '' \61\ If there is no established non-zero 
``threshold'' level at which it has been shown that the pollutant has 
no deleterious health effects, then the commenter asserted that the EPA 
cannot be certain that exposure to the pollutant at a given level 
presents ``no'' harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171, 176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters stated that IRIS contains ``no data'' on an RfC for 
chronic inhalation exposure.\62\ The ATSDR MRL on which the proposed 
Cl2 threshold is based is a ``screening value[] only'' and 
``[is] not [an] indicator[] of health effects.'' \63\ According to the 
ATSDR, ``Exposures to substances at doses above MRLs will not 
necessarily cause adverse health effects and should be further 
evaluated,'' ``MRLs are intended to serve only as a screening tool to 
help you decide if you should more closely evaluate exposures to a 
substance found at a site,'' and ``uncertainties are associated with 
[the] techniques'' used to derive MRLs.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ EPA, Integrated Risk Information System: Chlorine.
    \63\ ATSDR, Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (2005 
Update): Appendix F, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHAManual/appf.html (last updated Nov. 30, 2005).
    \64\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine, at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the MRL does not account for the 
potentially greater susceptibility of children, infants, and fetuses to 
Cl2 exposures \65\ and noted that CalEPA has recognized that 
Cl2 is a toxic air contaminant ``that may disproportionately 
impact infants and children'' because it can exacerbate asthma.\66\ 
Therefore, the commenter asserted the MRL does not reflect an 
``established'' safe health threshold at which exposure presents ``no'' 
adverse effects and that it is unlawful for the EPA to set CAA section 
112(d)(4) standards for Cl2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ ATSDR, Toxicological Profile for Chlorine at 20-21 
(observing that a value similar to the MRL could be calculated using 
the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) approach if an 
uncertainty factor of only 3 for human variability is used and no 
child-safety uncertainty factor is used).
    \66\ CalEPA, Prioritization of Toxic Air Contaminants Under the 
Children's Environmental Health Protection Act, at 27-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. As part of the risk 
analysis conducted to support this rule, the EPA thoroughly evaluated 
all the available and relevant scientific evidence on Cl2 
(as discussed in detail previously in this section) and concluded that 
there is no evidence that Cl2 is a carcinogen and that this 
information is sufficient to support this regulatory decision. The MRL 
for Cl2 was developed using the benchmark dose analysis 
method, which has been widely adopted across the risk assessment 
community and by the EPA's Risk Assessment Forum \67\ as a more 
reliable estimate of a threshold for an effect than a NOAEL or LOAEL. 
As a result, the REL for Cl2 does define a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ U.S. EPA (2012) Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance. Risk 
Assessment Forum, Washington, DC 20460. EPA/100/R-12/001, June 2012. 
Available online at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the assertion that the MRL does not take into 
consideration the potential for greater potential effects in children, 
in the development of the Toxicological Profile for Chlorine,\68\ ATSDR 
performed an exhaustive review of all of the relevant health effects 
data available at the time. Until new information becomes available, 
the Cl2 MRL is the most credible, scientifically grounded 
toxicity assessment for Cl2 and the most appropriate 
reference value to use in this regulatory action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 
2010. Toxicological profile for Chlorine. Atlanta, GA: U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk from 
Cl2 exposure and the evidence of an existing threshold below 
which Cl2 is not expected to cause adverse effects, the EPA 
considers it appropriate to set health threshold standards under CAA 
section 112(d)(4) for Cl2.
    Comment: One commenter referenced an NAS review of chemical health 
evaluations in the United States that concluded improvements in both 
chemical testing and risk assessment are needed to assure current risk 
evaluations protect people from toxic chemicals.\69\ The NAS 
recommended the EPA use ``A consistent, unified

[[Page 65495]]

approach for dose-response modeling that includes formal, systematic 
assessment of background disease processes and exposures, possible 
vulnerable populations, and modes of action that may affect a 
chemical's dose-response relationship in humans; that approach 
redefines the RfD or RfC as a risk-specific dose that provides 
information on the percentage of the population that can be expected to 
be above or below a defined acceptable risk with a specific degree of 
confidence.'' The NAS also observed that ``[n]oncancer effects do not 
necessarily have a threshold, or low-dose nonlinearity'' and found that 
``[b]ecause the RfD and RfC do not quantify risk for different 
magnitudes of exposure but rather provide a bright line between 
possible harm and safety, their use in risk-risk and risk-benefit 
comparisons and in risk-management decision-making is limited.'' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See National Research Council of the National Academies, 
Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-First Century: A Vision and a 
Strategy (2007); National Research Council of the National 
Academies, Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Tasks 
Ahead (2008); NAS, Science and Decisions.
    \70\ Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk 
Assessments to Protect Human Health (2012), available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/files/strengthening-toxic-chemical-riskassessments-report.pdf (citing NAS, Science and Decisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that there may be no safe threshold in the 
human population for many chemicals and that newer studies show many 
chemicals increase the risk of various noncancer health effects--such 
as reproductive harm and neurological effects--at low doses, without 
any scientifically identifiable threshold.\71\ The commenter noted that 
even if a threshold is established for an individual, when risk is 
assessed across a diverse population, it is unlikely the same threshold 
applies to all individuals because some people are more vulnerable than 
others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Janssen et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk 
Assessments to Protect Human Health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that, to address the fact that very low levels 
of non-carcinogen exposures can pose health risks, NAS recommended that 
cancer and chronic non-cancer risk assessment use the same 
approach.\72\ The commenter noted that the use of RfCs for dose-
response risk assessment of chronic non-cancer health effects may 
significantly underestimate risk: ``For these health effects, risk 
assessments focus on defining the reference dose (RfD) or reference 
concentration (RfC), which is defined as a dose `likely to be without 
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects' over a lifetime of 
exposure. In actual fact, these levels may pose appreciable risks.'' 
\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ NAS, Science and Decisions, at 8-9, 265-66.
    \73\ Janssen, S., et al., Strengthening Toxic Chemical Risk 
Assessments to Protect Human Health at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter asserted that the EPA ignored the best available, 
current science showing that pollutants have health effects at low 
doses in its evaluation of health thresholds for HCl, HF, and 
Cl2 and ignored NAS's recommendation that the EPA use 
similar approaches for chronic non-cancer as for cancer risk 
assessment, which presumes deleterious health effects for any amount of 
exposure. According to the commenter, the EPA lacked sufficient data to 
demonstrate that these pollutants do not cause harm at low levels of 
exposure over time and cannot be certain that there exists an 
established, safe health threshold at the proposed thresholds. The 
commenter also stated that, because it must be assumed that these 
pollutants cause harm at low doses, it is impossible for the EPA to 
meet the CAA's requirement for an ``ample margin of safety.'' The 
commenter concluded the EPA's use of CAA section 112(d)(4) standards 
for HCl, HF, and Cl2 is indefensible because the EPA 
determined the thresholds based on studies that did not identify a 
level at which no health effects were observed (i.e., a NOAEL) and the 
EPA itself has low confidence in the proposed thresholds.
    Response: The NAS has recognized that many of the recommended 
changes for the IRIS Program will need to be incorporated over a number 
of years and further recommended that assessments continue to be 
developed as the recommendations are implemented (i.e., the regulatory 
process should not be halted until all recommendations can be enacted). 
Improvements will thus be made over time and the best science available 
will be used in the interim. Further, the EPA has a legal obligation to 
proceed with regulatory action based on the best, currently available 
tools.
    The EPA's conclusion that HCl, HF and Cl2 are threshold 
pollutants is based on the best available toxicity database considered 
in hazard identification and dose response assessments. There is 
agreement on using a similar threshold approach for these chemicals 
across agencies, e.g., the EPA's IRIS Program, ATSDR and CalEPA. The 
toxicity assessments (which may include noncancer and/or cancer 
toxicity assessments) provided by these authoritative bodies are widely 
vetted through the scientific community and undergo rigorous peer 
review processes before they are published. In addition, the SAB has 
endorsed the use of the reference values derived by these sources to 
support EPA's risk assessments in the RTR program.
    Specifically, none of the compounds discussed here has been 
classified as carcinogenic or suggestive of the potential to be 
carcinogenic, individually or in combination by existing authoritative 
bodies including the EPA, CalEPA, IARC, OECD, and the European 
Community. In light of the absence of evidence of carcinogenic risk for 
any of these pollutants, and the evidence of an existing threshold 
below which HCl, HF and Cl2 are not expected to cause 
adverse effects, the EPA considers it appropriate to set health 
threshold standards under CAA 112(d)(4) for these pollutants.
2. Co-Benefits
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's proposal not to set 
MACT standards for acid gases did not fully consider the co-benefits of 
controlling criteria pollutants. The commenter noted that the 
legislative history makes clear that employing a CAA section 112(d)(4) 
standard rather than a conventional MACT standard ``shall not result in 
adverse environmental effect which would otherwise be reduced or 
eliminated.'' \74\ The EPA asserted that where there is an established 
health threshold, the agency may weigh additional factors in making a 
judgment as to whether to set CAA section 112(d)(4) standards or MACT 
standards, including ``[c]o-benefits that would be achieved via the 
MACT standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or 
criteria pollutants'' (79 FR 75622). The commenter asserted that it is 
impossible to make this assessment without evaluating the full 
collateral benefits of a MACT standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter noted that the EPA has recognized that MACT standards 
for HCl in other source categories resulted in reductions in emissions 
of PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other criteria and HAP pollutants and has 
relied upon the co-benefits of these reductions as a basis for not 
setting risk-based standards for those other source categories.\75\

[[Page 65496]]

However, for BSCP and clay ceramics plants, the EPA only considered the 
co-benefits of reductions in sulfur dioxide (SO2). The 
commenter argued the EPA should have considered the significant 
reductions in PM, hydrogen cyanide, and other pollutants that would 
likely result from MACT standards for HCl, HF, and Cl2, as 
these are the same reductions that the EPA considered in its past 
rulemakings. The commenter stated that these reductions will provide 
enormous health and environmental benefits that would not occur if CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standards are finalized instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and 
Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 75 FR 54970, 
54984 (Sept. 9, 2010) (``Setting technology-based MACT standards for 
HCl . . . would likely also result in additional reductions in 
emissions of mercury, along with condensable PM, ammonia, and semi-
volatile compounds.''); id. at 54,985 (``Setting an HCl standard 
under 112(d)(2) and (3) allows the Agency to also address'' HCN, 
ammonia, and other pollutants.); National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry, 74 FR 21136, 21160 (May 6, 2009) (``[S]etting a MACT 
standard for HCl is anticipated to result in a significant amount of 
control for other pollutants emitted by cement kilns, most notably 
SO2 and other acid gases, along with condensable PM, 
ammonia, and semi-volatile compounds.''); 75 FR 32030 (``[S]etting 
conventional MACT standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result 
in significant reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most 
notably SO2, non-condensable PM, and other non-HAP acid 
gases (e.g., hydrogen bromide) and would likely also result in 
additional reductions in emissions of mercury and other HAP metals 
(e.g., selenium).''); 76 FR 25051 (``[S]etting conventional MACT 
standards for HCl as well as PM . . . would result in significant 
reductions in emissions of other pollutants, most notably 
SO2, PM, and other non-HAP acid gases (e.g., hydrogen 
bromide) and would likely also result in additional reductions in 
emissions of Hg and other HAP metals (e.g., Se).'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Although not explicitly stated in the preamble to the 
proposed rule, the EPA agrees with the commenter that MACT standards 
for acid gases for BSCP manufacturing facilities are associated with 
additional reductions of PM emissions (approximately 460 tpy in the 
third year following promulgation of the standards) and non-Hg HAP 
metals emissions. No additional PM or non-Hg HAP metals emission 
reductions would be expected from sanitaryware tunnel kilns because it 
is anticipated that all sanitaryware tunnel kilns could meet the MACT 
floor emission limits for HF and HCl without additional APCD. The EPA 
has no information suggesting that HCN is emitted from BSCP or clay 
ceramics manufacturing facilities, so no reduction in HCN would be 
expected from MACT standards for HF, HCl, and Cl2.
    For the past rulemakings in which the EPA considered co-benefits as 
part of a CAA section 114(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA did not quantify 
the PM emissions reductions associated with MACT standards (see 79 FR 
75641, footnote 27), so a direct comparison of the co-benefits of the 
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 
with the co-benefits of these other rules for PM is not possible. The 
only pollutant with quantified emissions reductions in the co-benefits 
analyses for these other rulemakings was SO2, so that was 
the pollutant highlighted in the co-benefits analysis for BSCP and clay 
ceramics at proposal. The additional nationwide reductions of 
SO2 that would be attributable to MACT standards for acid 
gases in the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are estimated to be only 4,700 
tpy in the third year following promulgation of the standards. No 
additional nationwide reductions of SO2 would be 
attributable to MACT standards for acid gases in the Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP because it is anticipated that all sanitaryware 
tunnel kilns could meet the MACT floor emission limits without 
additional APCD. As noted at proposal, these reductions are 
substantially lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other 
industries for which the EPA has decided not to set a HBEL, and it 
would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit.
3. Ecosystem Impacts
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the ecological 
impacts of the proposed HBEL for acid gases. The commenter stated that 
federal, state and local agencies have struggled for years to reduce 
emissions of SO2 and other acid gases to prevent the 
devastating effects of acid rain on large ecosystems and noted the 
proposed standards would likely result in the acidification of the 
ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 
sources. The commenter asserted the ecological impact analysis of the 
emissions standards for this proposal is inadequate.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the ecological 
analysis is inadequate. The environmental screening analysis evaluated 
potential damage and reduced productivity of plants due to chronic 
direct exposure to HCl and HF emitted by clay ceramics manufacturing 
facilities and BSCP manufacturing facilities into the air. The chronic 
90-day benchmarks used in the environmental risk screen for the acid 
gases are shown in Table 7 of this preamble and discussed in the 
following section.

 Table 7--Acid Gas Benchmarks Included in the Environmental Risk Screen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Chronic 90-day
                        Acid gas                           benchmark in
                                                          [mu]g/m\3\ \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrochloric acid--LOEL.................................           \b\50
Hydrofluoric acid--Plant Community LOEL.................             0.5
Hydrofluoric acid--Plant Community LOEL.................             0.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Micrograms per cubic meter.
\b\ Note that the human health RfC is 20 [micro]g/m\3\, which is lower
  than the ecological benchmark.

    For HCl, the EPA identified chronic benchmark concentrations as 
described in a 2009 EPA document on RTR risk assessment 
methodologies.\76\ The chronic benchmark for HCl was based on a lowest 
observed effects level (LOEL) from a short-term exposure (20 minutes) 
that related HCl concentration to ``changes'' in the leaves of 7 out of 
8 plant species as reported by Lerman et al.\77\ It was the lowest 
exposure concentration at which effects of any type were seen (visible 
injury to some proportion of leaves). Haber's law was used to 
extrapolate the 1.5 mg/m\3\ LOEL concentration (20-minute exposure) to 
a 0.5 mg/m\3\ concentration expected to produce the same effect after 1 
hour. The 1-hour estimated LOEL was extrapolated to a chronic benchmark 
by dividing by a factor of ten to yield 0.050 mg/m\3\, or 50 [micro]g/
m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0044.
    \77\ Lerman, S., O.C. Taylor, and E.F. Darley, 1976. 
Phytotoxicity of Hydrogen Chloride Gas with a Short-Term Exposure. 
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 10, pp. 873-878.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For HF, the EPA used two chronic benchmark concentrations for 
plants in the environmental screening analysis. The value of 0.5 [mu]g 
HF/m\3\ is based on the Washington State criterion for gaseous HF and 
represents a LOEL. The value of 0.4 [mu]g HF/m\3\ is based on the 
Environment Canada criteria and also represents a LOEL.
    To protect vegetation from adverse effects resulting from HF 
exposure, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment \78\ 
recommends that HF concentrations not exceed 0.4 [mu]g/m\3\ over a 30- 
to 90-day period; HF concentrations can be higher for shorter 
exposures). Environment Canada \79\ defined the effect represented by 
the level of 0.4 [mu]g HF/m\3\ as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ CCME. 1999b. Canadian National Ambient Air Quality 
Objectives: Process and Status. In: Canadian Environmental Quality 
Guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 
Winnipeg. Publication No. 1299, ISBN 1-896997-34-1. Available at 
http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.ca/download/en/133/.
    \79\ EC. (Environment Canada). 1996. National Ambient Air 
Quality Objectives for Hydrogen Fluoride (HF). Science Assessment 
Document. A Report by the CEPA/FPAC Working Group on Air Quality 
Objectives and Guidelines. July. ISBN 0-662-25641-7, Catalogue En42-
17/6-1997. Available online at: http://www.bape.gouv.qc.ca/sections/mandats/ap50_rio_tinto_alcan/documents/DQ3.1.1.pdf.

    The level above which there are demonstrated effects on human 
health and/

[[Page 65497]]

or the environment. It is scientifically based and defines the 
boundary between the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) 
and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). It is considered 
to be the level of exposure just below that most likely to result in 
a defined and identifiable but minimal effect. The reference levels 
have no safety factors applied to them, as they are related directly 
to the LOAEL, and are the most conservative estimates of the effect 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
level.

    High concentrations of HF in the air have also been linked to 
fluorosis in livestock. However, the HF concentrations at which 
fluorosis in livestock occur are higher than those at which plant 
damage begins. Therefore, the benchmarks for plants are protective of 
both plants and livestock.
    For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk 
screen indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentration 
of HCl around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average 
concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did 
not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition, the ecological 
benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor location for any 
facility. For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the 
area-weighted average modeled concentration of HF around each Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing facility did not exceed the ecological 
benchmark. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations 
of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological 
benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no 
greater than 1 percent of the offsite modeling domain for each 
facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or 
widespread environmental effects.
    For BSCP Manufacturing facilities, the environmental risk screen 
indicated that the area-weighted average modeled concentrations of HCl 
and HF around each facility (i.e., the area-weighted average 
concentration of all offsite data points in the modeling domain) did 
not exceed the ecological benchmarks. In addition, the area over which 
the HCl or HF benchmarks were exceeded was less than 1 percent of the 
offsite modeling domain for each facility in the category, indicating 
that there would not be any significant or widespread environmental 
effects.
    The EPA did not conduct an assessment of the potential for 
emissions of HCl to cause acidification in close proximity to the 
sources in this category. Acid deposition, more commonly known as acid 
rain, primarily occurs when emissions of SO2 and nitrogen 
oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere (with water, oxygen, 
and oxidants) to form various acidic compounds.\80\ Although some 
studies indicate that HCl emissions could contribute to acidification 
around emission sources in certain environments,\81\ its overall effect 
relative to NOX and SO2 emissions would be small. 
In addition, the commenter did not provide any data to support their 
assertion that the proposed standards would result in the acidification 
of the ecosystems in close proximity to BSCP and structural clay 
products manufacturing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program Report to 
Congress, 2005. Also see--http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/reducing/index.html.
    \81\ Hydrochloric Acid: An Overlooked Driver of Environmental 
Change. Environmental Science and Technology 2011, 45, 1187-1894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cumulative Effects
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA did not fully 
consider the cumulative effects of exposure to HAP when proposing the 
health-based standard under CAA section 112(d)(4). The commenter 
asserted that the agency assumed there are no cumulative health and 
environmental impacts of concern and argued the EPA cannot ensure that 
its proposed standards include an ample margin of safety without 
properly accounting for the additive and/or synergistic effects of 
multiple pollutants and the cumulative effects of nearby emissions.
    Another commenter stated that the EPA made no adjustments to the 
HBEL it selected to account for the potential for harm from exposures 
other than to the amounts of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it proposed to 
allow. Specifically, the EPA must consider emissions of HCl, HF, and 
Cl2 and other pollutants with biologically similar endpoints 
(i.e., that cause respiratory harm) from sources in the source category 
as well as from any co-located sources and other stationary or mobile 
sources located such that their emissions affect people who are also 
exposed to the emissions subject to the NESHAP. The commenter asserted 
that the EPA cannot lawfully set limits ``with an ample margin of 
safety'' when it ignores other sources of exposure and cumulative 
health effects. The commenter asserted that, to protect exposed 
populations, the regulated sources must reduce their emissions to a 
level that ensures the total concentration of pollutants will remain 
below the pollutants' respective health thresholds. The commenter 
asserted that the EPA's decision to ignore the impact of other 
emissions and background concentrations in the implementation of the 
HBEL is therefore arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and 
otherwise not in accordance with law.
    If the ambient concentration of a particular pollutant is already 
at or near the health threshold, the commenter asserted that an 
additional source of that pollutant or another pollutant with a 
biologically similar endpoint can push the exposure over the threshold, 
even if the additional source emits the pollutant at low 
concentrations. The total risk that is unacceptable for the most-
exposed person in each source category must be reduced to consider the 
cumulative effect of these additional exposures and to create a total 
risk from all regulated source categories. The commenter stated that 
EPA's assessment of cumulative risks posed by HCl, HF, and 
Cl2 emissions ignored emissions from co-located sources (for 
BSCP kilns), nearby sources and all other potential sources that could 
contribute to background levels. The commenter noted that the EPA has 
emissions information about co-located and nearby sources in its own 
databases but failed to evaluate whether cumulative exposures would 
exceed the health thresholds and to consider combined exposures. The 
commenter reviewed reports from the EPA's Enforcement and Compliance 
History Online (ECHO) Web site for a number of BSCP and clay ceramics 
facilities and provided notes on other major source facilities in close 
proximity. The commenter stated that the EPA's justifications regarding 
cumulative nearby emissions are legally inadequate and factually 
inaccurate. The commenter stated that general assertions that other 
operations are not ``commonly'' co-located with BSCP and clay ceramics 
facilities, that such facilities are ``typically'' located on large 
tracts of land, and that facilities are set back from property lines in 
rural areas are insufficient to set the emissions standard at a level 
that protects all people living near such facilities.
    The commenter stated that information in the EPA's own databases 
demonstrates that BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not 
predominantly located in rural, sparsely populated areas, as the EPA 
assumes. Many of the BSCP facilities are located in urban areas, 
including Boral Bricks in Terre Haute, Indiana; Hanson Brick in 
Columbia, South Carolina; General Shale Brick in Denver, Colorado; and 
Cherokee Brick & Tile in Macon, Georgia.\82\ Similarly, in the clay

[[Page 65498]]

ceramics source category, only two of the sources are located in areas 
considered ``rural'' by the United States Census Bureau: American 
Marazzi Tile in Sunnyvale, Texas, and the Kohler Wisconsin Plant 
outside of Sheboygan, Wisconsin.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural 
Classification and Urban Area Criteria: Lists of 2010 Census Urban 
Areas, http://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/reference/ua/ua_list_all.xls.
    \83\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban and Rural 
Classification and Urban Area Criteria,  https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/urban-rural-2010.html (revised Feb. 9, 2015) (searching 
plant location by city listed in address).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that the EPA's assessment of cumulative risks 
does not meet generally accepted good practices in risk assessment. The 
SAB recommended in May 2010 that the EPA incorporate ``aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area'' into its risk analysis.\84\ The 
commenter stated that the EPA must assess the total and cumulative risk 
burden, rather than only looking at each type of risk in a discrete, 
separate way, and the EPA should be integrating its assessments and 
performing a ``comprehensive risk assessment'' as the NAS has 
emphasized. After first assessing the total cancer, chronic non-cancer, 
and acute risks, for both inhalation and multipathway exposure, the EPA 
also must assess the total risks.\85\ The EPA must aggregate health 
risk for each pollutant, and each type of health risk, to create a 
cumulative risk determination for an individual with maximum exposure. 
Without a combined health risk metric, the EPA cannot make an ample 
margin of safety determination that is based on the full picture of 
health risk for these source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa 
Jackson, Adm'r, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA's Draft, EPA-SAB-10-007 
at 6 (May 7, 2010).
    \85\ CalEPA, OEHHA, Cumulative Impacts at 19-21, 25 (describing 
total ``pollution burden'' as sum of exposures, public health 
effects, and environmental effects); EPA, Concepts, Methods and Data 
Sources for Cumulative Health Risk Assessment of Multiple Chemicals, 
Exposures and Effects, at 4-42 to 4-46 (Aug. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter stated that this proposal is contrary to the 
EPA's recent conclusion in its regulation of power plant electric 
generating units that ``the potential cumulative public health and 
environmental effects of acid gas emissions'' did not allow for CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standards.\86\ In that rulemaking, the EPA did not 
receive facility-specific emissions information for all the acid gases 
from units in the source category, co-located sources, and all nearby 
sources. The EPA concluded that ``cumulative impacts of acid gases on 
public health were not assuaged by the comments received.'' The 
commenter stated that the EPA did not consider that information in this 
rulemaking either, and just as in the power plant rulemaking, HBEL are 
not lawful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Responses to Public Comments on EPA's National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-Fired 
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units, vol. 1. Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-20126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA did not 
consider the potential impacts of nearby BSCP and clay ceramics 
facilities or other nearby facilities in the determination of the HBEL 
for each source category. The limit reflects the impacts of all 
facilities in the source category. While the risk assessment did not 
perform a detailed modeling analysis of other nearby facilities, based 
on a proximity analysis of sources emitting acid gases, the EPA 
concludes that the emissions from these facilities would not have 
significantly impacted the analysis for several reasons. First, the 
limit reflects a hazard index (HI) less than or equal to one at the 
highest impacted receptor at each facility. For source categories like 
BSCP and clay ceramics where emission release heights are low, the 
highest impacted receptor is always very near (e.g., shares a common 
fenceline) the facility, and ambient concentrations fall quickly with 
distance from the source. Because of this, other facilities would have 
to be very near a BSCP or clay ceramics facility and have relatively 
high emissions to have any significant impact on the receptor with the 
highest estimated concentration from the BSCP or clay ceramics 
emissions. As in risk assessments performed under the Risk and 
Technology Review program, the EPA did not model the nearby sources in 
the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) because that inventory has not 
received the same level of review and quality assurance that the BSCP 
emissions have for the purposes of this rulemaking.
    Although the EPA did not model the other nearby facilities, the EPA 
did compare the location of all sources emitting acid gases with the 
locations of the BSCP and clay ceramics facilities. The EPA found that 
only four facilities emitted acid gases within 1 kilometer of any BSCP 
facility. Beyond 1 kilometer, we would expect very little coincidental 
impacts from multiple low level sources emitting the same pollutants. 
The largest of these facilities emitted less than 12 tpy of HCl-
equivalent emissions, or less than 5 percent of the emissions limit. 
The estimated HI for this BSCP facility was 0.6, so an increase of 5 
percent in emissions would result in an increase in HI of at most 5 
percent and, thus, not increase the HI above a value of 1. There are no 
other sources emitting acid gases within 1 kilometer of any clay 
ceramics facility.
    Also, for the BSCP plant with the highest estimated HI, there are 
no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 5 kilometers of 
the facility. For the clay ceramics plant with the highest estimated 
HI, there are no other acid gas emissions indicated in the NEI within 
10 kilometers of the facility. Thus, we would not expect emissions of 
acid gases from other sources to contribute significantly at the 
receptors where the maximum HI occurs due to BSCP or clay ceramic 
emissions, and the HI at these receptors would not exceed 1.
5. Risk Assessment
    Comment: One commenter stated that the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) 
meteorological data used for dispersion calculations was insufficient 
because it included data for only 1 year (2011) from only 824 
meteorological stations. The commenter asserted that this provides a 
very limited snapshot of air quality data and, therefore, is 
insufficient to determine with confidence that exposures at the 
proposed emissions standards pose ``no risk'' of adverse health 
effects. The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary to set 
CAA section 112(d)(4) standards without more extensive air quality 
information.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 
meteorological data were insufficient to perform the risk assessment. 
Although 5 years of meteorological data are preferred for assessing 
chronic exposures and risks, we use a single year (2011) of 
meteorological data in our risk assessments because of model run times 
for the Human Exposure Model (HEM-3) air dispersion model (AERMOD). 
Because we frequently run AERMOD for an entire source category with 
many individual emissions points and for many receptors, using 5 years 
of meteorological data would increase already significant model run 
times by a factor of five compared to a single year. In a sensitivity 
analysis of the impact of using a single year of meteorological data 
compared to 5 years,\87\ we found that modeled concentrations differed 
by less than 10 percent on average and, thus, the use of

[[Page 65499]]

1 year of meteorological data is not likely to appreciably affect the 
results of the risk assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ U.S. EPA, 2009. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing. EPA-452/R-09-006. Docket Item No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The meteorological data we used were obtained from the Automated 
Surface Observing Systems (ASOS) program, which is a joint effort of 
the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA), and the Department of Defense (DOD). The ASOS serves as the 
nation's primary surface weather observing network and is designed to 
support weather forecast activities and aviation operations and, at the 
same time, support the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, and 
climatological research communities. With the largest and most modern 
complement of weather sensors, ASOS has significantly expanded the 
amount of available meteorological information. The ASOS works non-
stop, updating observations every minute, 24 hours a day, every day of 
the year. The ASOS is installed at more than 900 airports across the 
country, and our meteorological library for the year 2011 includes all 
of these that are without a significant number of missing hours (824 
stations).
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the EPA's modeling understates 
chronic health risk by assuming that chronic exposure to HAP from BSCP 
and clay ceramic manufacturing sources occurs at the census block 
centroid and not at the facility fence or property line. The commenters 
stated that exposures are likely to be higher for people living closest 
to the plants, especially because census blocks can cover a large area 
and the center of a census block is almost always farther away from the 
facility than the facility's property line. One commenter noted that 
even if the area near the property line is not developed, over time 
homes and businesses could locate closer to the facility. While it is 
possible that population distribution is homogenous over a census 
block, the commenter stated this assumption is not necessarily accurate 
in considering the predicted impacts from the location of a source.
    One commenter stated that no effort was made to move receptor 
points closer to the facility to assess chronic or cancer risk, even in 
those instances where local residents live nearer to a facility than 
the geographic centroid of the census block. This conflicts with the 
recommendation of the SAB, which has urged the EPA to consider 
``specific locations of residences.'' \88\ The commenter stated that 
the EPA failed to adjust receptor points for residents living on the 
fence-line even though the HEM-AERMOD system allows for such an 
adjustment, and that such an adjustment was appropriately made for the 
estimation of acute health risks (see, e.g., 79 FR 75644). The 
commenter stated that the EPA cannot justify failing to analyze chronic 
health effects in a similar manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board, U.S. EPA, to Lisa 
Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA re: Review of EPA's Draft entitled, 
``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment Methodologies: 
For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with Case Studies--
MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing'' at 4. May 7, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter agreed and stated that the EPA can use HEM-3 to 
identify the maximum individual risk at any point in a census block 
that is within a 50-kilometer radius from the center of the modeled 
facility. The commenter recommended the EPA not use the predicted 
chronic exposures at the census block centroid as a surrogate for the 
exposure concentrations for all people living in that block; instead, 
the EPA should use the maximum individual risk in its risk assessments, 
irrespective of its location in the census block.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that we 
relied solely on the census block centroids as receptors for human 
exposure. As we have noted in the development of RTR regulations, in a 
national-scale assessment of lifetime inhalation exposures and health 
risks from facilities in a source category, it is appropriate to 
identify exposure locations where it may be reasonably expected that an 
individual will spend a majority of his or her lifetime. Further, in 
determining chronic risks, it is appropriate to use census block 
information on where people actually reside, rather than points on a 
fenceline, to locate the estimation of exposures and risks to 
individuals living near such facilities.
    Census blocks are the finest resolution available as part of the 
nationwide population data (as developed by the U.S. Census Bureau); 
each is typically comprised of approximately 50 people, or about 20 
households. In the EPA risk assessments, the geographic centroid of 
each census block containing at least one person is used to represent 
the location where all the people in that census block live. The census 
block centroid with the highest estimated exposure then becomes the 
location of maximum exposure, and the entire population of that census 
block is assumed to experience the maximum individual risk. In some 
cases, because actual residence locations may be closer to or farther 
from facility emission points, this may result in an overestimate or 
underestimate of the actual annual concentrations (although there is no 
systematic bias for average levels). Given the relatively small 
dimensions of census blocks in densely populated areas, there is little 
uncertainty introduced by using the census block centroids in lieu of 
actual residence locations. There is the potential for more uncertainty 
when census blocks are larger, although there is still no systematic 
bias. The EPA concludes that the most appropriate locations at which to 
estimate chronic exposures and risks are the census block centroids 
because: (1) Census blocks are the finest resolution available in the 
national census data, (2) facility fencelines do not usually represent 
locations where chronic exposures are likely and (3) there is no bias 
introduced into the estimate of the MIR by using census block centroid 
locations. In addition, in its peer review of the methodologies used to 
estimate risks as part of the RTR rulemaking efforts, the EPA's SAB 
endorsed this approach.
    In addition to the approach described above, the EPA recognizes 
that where a census block centroid is located on industrial property or 
is large and the centroid is less likely to be representative of the 
block's residential locations, the block centroid may not be the 
appropriate surrogate. For BSCP facilities, in cases where a census 
block centroid was within 300 meters of any emission source (and 
therefore possibly on facility property), we viewed aerial images of 
the facility to determine whether the block centroid was likely located 
on facility property. Likewise, we examined aerial images of all large 
census blocks within 1 kilometer of any emission source. If the block 
centroid did not represent the residential locations within that block, 
we relocated it to better represent them and/or we added additional 
receptors for residences nearer to the facility than the centroid. For 
this source category, we relocated 14 census blocks that appeared to be 
on facility property or were otherwise not representative of the 
population within the block, and we modeled an additional 15 receptors 
in cases where the single block centroid was inadequate to characterize 
the population within the census blocks.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA's risk assessment did 
not account for the synergistic health effects from the potential 
exposure to multiple acid gas pollutants. Specifically, the EPA did not 
demonstrate that no health effects would occur if a person is 
chronically exposed to a combination of

[[Page 65500]]

HCl, HF, and Cl2, even if the sum of the exposures 
(converted into ``equivalent'' units) does not exceed the ``HCl-
equivalent'' limit. The commenter also argued the EPA failed to provide 
evidence showing that the acid gases would not have synergistic effects 
that could cause harm at a chronic exposure concentration that is lower 
than the RfC, REL, or MRL of each pollutant. The commenter asserted the 
EPA did not seek outside peer review by the SAB or other body or 
request public comment on its use of dose-response values to exchange 
exposures of one acid gas pollutant for another prior to proposing use 
of ``HCl-equivalents'' standards.
    The commenter stated that since the EPA based the ratio for 
comparing HF and Cl2 emissions to HCl emissions on the RfC, 
REL or MRL values, and those values are uncertain and flawed (see 
previous comments in this section V.A, explaining that values were not 
based on a NOAEL, and the EPA has ``low'' confidence in the HCl RfC), 
the HCl-equivalent method cannot assure ``an ample margin of safety.'' 
The commenter asserted that CAA section 112(d)(4) requires the EPA to 
set separate standards for HCl and HF, and the EPA's decision to set a 
HCl-equivalent emissions standard is unlawful and arbitrary.
    Response: The EPA believes that groups of chemicals can behave 
antagonistically or synergistically, such that combined exposure can 
either cause less or more harm, depending on the chemicals. To address 
pollutant mixtures in the determination of the HBEL, the EPA generally 
used the same methodology used in RTR assessments, which is to follow 
the EPA's mixture guidelines.89 90 This methodology has been 
formally peer reviewed by the SAB.\91\ Following the mixture 
guidelines, the EPA aggregated noncancer hazard quotients (HQs) of HAP 
that act by similar toxic modes of action or that affect the same 
target organ. This process creates, for each target organ, a target-
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI), defined as the sum of HQs for 
individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system. All TOSHI 
calculations were based exclusively on effects occurring at the 
``critical dose'' (i.e., the lowest dose that produces adverse health 
effects). The EPA actually calculated the HBEL conservatively by 
including HF in the calculation of equivalent emissions even though it 
affects a different target organ than HCl and Cl2, thereby 
allowing the development of a single emissions limit for all acid 
gases. The conservatism in the limit due to the inclusion of pollutants 
with different target organ systems would have the effect of 
ameliorating potential synergism of the acid gases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ U.S. EPA, 1986. Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment 
of Chemical Mixtures. EPA-630-R-98-002. September 1986.
    \90\ U.S. EPA, 2000. Supplementary Guidance for Conducting 
Health Risk Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. August 2000.
    \91\ U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2010. Review of EPA's 
draft entitled, ``Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk Assessment 
Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory Board with 
Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and Portland Cement 
Manufacturing.'' May 7, 2010. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-
10-007-unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Ample Margin of Safety
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's decision to set an 
HCl-equivalent HBEL, rather than set separate HBEL for HCl, HF, and 
Cl2. The commenter stated that, by setting one ``HCl-
equivalent emissions'' limit at 250 tpy (57 lb/hr) for BSCP tunnel 
kilns and 600 tpy (140 lb/hr) for clay ceramics sources, each source is 
free to emit whatever combination of HCl, HF, and Cl2 it 
would like, provided the aggregate of the ``HCl-equivalent emissions'' 
does not exceed the limit. The commenter also noted that the HCl-
equivalent HBEL for clay ceramics does not include Cl2 and 
requested that the EPA explain how it converted Cl2 into 
HCl-equivalent emissions.
    The commenter stated that CAA section 112(d)(2) mandates that the 
EPA ``shall require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the 
hazardous air pollutants subject to this section.'' The commenter 
asserted that it is unlawful for the EPA not to set an emissions limit 
for a CAA section 112-listed pollutant (Nat'l Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d at 
634) and concluded that even if the EPA believes the health risks posed 
by HF and Cl2 emissions can be translated into HCl-
equivalent units, the proposed ``HCl-equivalent'' limit contravenes the 
EPA's obligation to set CAA section 112(d) standards for each 
pollutant.
    The commenter also stated that the EPA's approach raises questions 
about whether the use of ``HCl-equivalents'' results in limits that 
protect people against all of a pollutant's health risks with ``an 
ample margin of safety,'' as required by CAA section 112(d)(4). The 
commenter argued that because pollutants cause different adverse health 
effects, they are not ``equivalent'' pollutants that cause 
``equivalent'' health effects at ``equivalent'' concentrations of 
exposure. The commenter further argued the RfC for HCl is based on a 
study of respiratory toxicity and is meant to protect individuals 
against respiratory harms from chronic exposures, while the REL used 
for HF is based on a study of skeletal fluorosis (increased bone 
density) and is meant to protect individuals against skeletal harm from 
chronic exposures.\92\ The commenter noted that the EPA focused only on 
the respiratory harm caused by the pollutants, when skeletal harm is 
the most sensitive effect for HF, and the EPA failed to explain why 
skeletal harm caused by a certain quantity of HF can be converted into 
respiratory harm caused by HCl.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ OEHHA, Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries, at 278. CalEPA 
made it clear that its REL is for ``[i]ncreased bone density 
(skeletal fluorosis),'' that the NOAEL was for ``chronic skeletal 
fluorosis,'' and that ``[c]hanges in bone density . . . appear[s] to 
be the most sensitive health effect for chronic exposure.'' OEHHA, 
Chronic RELs and Toxicity Summaries at 272, 278-79. The principal 
study on which the REL is based did observe an increase in the 
incidence of acute respiratory disease, too, id. at 271, but the REL 
was not primarily based on that health effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also noted that the EPA does not claim to be using 
HCl as a surrogate for HF or Cl2. The commenter stated that 
the EPA previously stated that HCl cannot act as a surrogate for the 
other acid gases because pollutants that act on humans in different 
manners, at different doses, cannot stand in for one another (see 76 FR 
25049 and 75 FR 32031).
    Another commenter expressed concern the HCl-equivalent emissions 
limit could mask exposures or emissions of concern for the most toxic 
gas because the comparison would be dominated by a higher concentration 
pertinent to the less toxic gases. The commenter asserted that there is 
no analysis that justifies this combined metric and noted it would be 
more justifiable if the substances were in the same order of magnitude 
for potential potency. The commenter recommended that the EPA consider 
whether these gases could contribute to the acid component of ambient 
air that is thought to potentially contribute to cancer and other 
effects because these impacts appear not to have been considered by the 
EPA.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the 
HBEL cannot be based on equivalent emissions of a single pollutant. For 
the BSCP Manufacturing rulemaking, the EPA used an approach specific 
for this NESHAP to set health-protective emissions limits that would 
account for the multiple acid gas pollutants emitted by the BSCP 
facilities. By converting the emissions of each acid gas or combination 
of acid gases (HCl, Cl2 and

[[Page 65501]]

HF) to an HCl-equivalent emission, the EPA can estimate a single 
exposure concentrations for comparison with the HCl reference value 
(RfC). If the ratio of HCl exposure concentration to the HCl RfC value 
remains at or below 1, the HBEL (HCl-equivalent emissions) would ensure 
that the threshold values for any individual or combination of acid 
gases would not be exceeded (i.e., remain at or below 1). The EPA used 
the same approach to convert emissions of HF to an HCl-equivalent and 
determine the HBEL for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP; the only 
difference is that there are no valid Cl2 emissions data for 
clay ceramics facilities, so Cl2 is not included in the 
HBEL.
    Comment: Two commenters generally supported the proposed HBEL and 
stated that the EPA has conclusively demonstrated that the proposed 
HBEL would provide an ample margin of safety for HCl, HF, and 
Cl2 emissions from affected facilities. As the EPA explained 
in the proposal, the analysis was based on site specific data from each 
tunnel kiln, and the proposed HBEL was developed at a level that would 
result in an HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Because the potential 
risks at facilities other than the worst-case facility are predicted to 
be well below 1, the commenters stated that this analysis assures that 
an ample margin of safety will be provided for the ``worst case'' 
facility in the industry and more than an ample margin will be provided 
for all other affected facilities.
    Conversely, another commenter contended that the EPA's proposed 
HBEL under CAA section 112(d)(4) does not include ``an ample margin of 
safety.'' The commenter disagreed with the approach the EPA used to 
determine the CAA section 112(d)(4) limits. Specifically, the commenter 
stated that by setting the limits at precisely the same level as the 
threshold value, the EPA proposed to allow plants to emit acid gas 
pollution that would expose people to amounts of pollution that reach 
threshold levels.
    The commenter stated that these limits do not include any ``margin 
of safety,'' let alone an ``ample'' one, as the EPA is required to 
include for CAA section 112(d)(4) standards. The commenter expressed 
concern that under the EPA's approach, even the slightest uncertainty 
in the EPA's estimates or low background levels of pollution can place 
health at risk because plants can emit at the health threshold. The 
commenter stated that the EPA did not explain how these limits would 
protect public health with ``an ample margin of safety.'' \93\ The 
commenter asserted that a margin of safety is supposed to provide 
additional safety and account for uncertainty and variability that 
might result in harm to individuals below the threshold. The commenter 
further stated that an ``ample'' margin of safety must assure not only 
extra room for safety, but a ``generous'' margin for safety.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Mountain Commc'ns v. FCC, 355 F.3d 644, 648-49 (D.C. Cir. 
2004) (agency must ``explain how its position can be reconciled'' 
with statutory requirements).
    \94\ Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1971) defines 
``margin'' as ``a spare amount or measure or degree allowed or given 
for contingencies or special situations'' and ``ample'' as 
``generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter noted that a TOSHI (which is the sum of the HQs) of 
``one'' does not necessarily represent a safe level of exposure. The 
commenter asserted the EPA characterizes a TOSHI or HQ of ``one'' or 
less as exposures that ``are not likely to cause adverse health 
effects'' (79 FR 75643), but did not provide any explanation why this 
level would meet the statutory standard. According to the commenter, 
Congress intended the standard to be set at a level at which there is 
``no risk'' of ``adverse health effects,'' plus ``an ample margin of 
safety (and not considering cost).'' \95\ For these reasons, the 
commenter concluded that the proposed limits do not comply with the CAA 
and could put public health at risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ S. Rep. No. 101-228, at 171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also expressed concern that the EPA did not take 
steps to adjust the limits to reflect the uncertainties regarding 
health exposures and effects. The EPA has factored in uncertainties and 
vulnerability factors in other rulemakings, such as when determining a 
Target Margin of Exposure under the FQPA, where the EPA considered 
whether risks below the Target Margin of Exposure warranted increased 
scrutiny and changes to allowable exposures.\96\ The commenter also 
stated that the EPA's proposed limits would allow human exposures to 
exceed the level that CalEPA has identified is the safety minimum. 
Allowing human exposure to HCl concentrations above a threshold a state 
agency determined may cause respiratory harm, the commenter contended, 
would not provide the ample margin of safety required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See, e.g., EPA, Sulfuryl Fluoride; Proposed Order Granting 
Objections to Tolerances and Denying Request for a Stay, Proposed 
Rule, 76 FR 3422, 3427 (Jan. 19, 2011) (explaining use of MOE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter further stated that the ``ample margin of safety'' 
language in CAA section 112(d)(4) requires that any standard that is 
set under this authority must be sufficient to protect against 
significant unforeseen consequences.\97\ The commenter stated that 
because the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement is meant to protect 
against risks that have not yet been identified in research, a CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standard cannot be justified on grounds that the EPA 
does not have sufficient evidence about the health risks posed by a HAP 
or does not have the time or inclination to review the evidence that is 
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See, e.g., Envtl. Def. Fund v. EPA, 598 F.2d 62, 81 (D.C. 
Cir. 1978) (holding that the phrase `ample margin of safety' in the 
Clean Water Act's toxic provisions required the EPA to protect 
against as yet unidentified risks to human health, including those 
``which research has not yet identified'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: For several reasons, the EPA disagrees with the commenter 
who stated that the HBEL does not include an ample margin of safety. 
First, the limit is based on the single facility in the source category 
with the worst-case combination of meteorology and distance to nearest 
residential receptor that leads to the highest ambient concentrations. 
While the EPA estimates that the limit reflects an HI of one at this 
facility, the HI at most other facilities would be significantly lower, 
with approximately 90 percent of the facilities having an estimated HI 
less than or equal to 0.5. Further as the standard is based on a 1-hour 
emission limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis 
conservatively assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an 
entire year (8,760 hours). Also, the limit is based on estimated 
ambient concentrations and not exposure concentrations. Exposure 
concentrations are typically lower than ambient concentrations because 
they reflect that people's activities (e.g., work, school) remove them 
from their residential exposure locations for significant amounts of 
time. For these reasons, the EPA concludes that the emission limit is 
health protective (i.e., exposures will remain below the threshold 
values) and this conservative exposure scenario is consistent with the 
``ample margin of safety'' requirement in CAA section 112(d)(4).
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA 
underestimated acute health risks in the evaluation of the risk of 
acute harm from short-term exposures by ignoring variability in short-
term emissions. The commenter noted that the EPA calculated the 1-hour 
emissions estimates for its modeling of acute harm by dividing the 
annual emissions level by 8,760 hours per year instead of using a 
default factor or emissions multiplier to account for higher-than-
average short-term

[[Page 65502]]

emissions. The commenter noted actual emissions over a 1-hour period 
will at times exceed the average hourly emissions level used in the 
modeling. The commenter asserted the EPA did not explain how this 
approach captures peak short-term emissions levels or adequately 
protects people from short-term exposures at levels above the average.
    The commenter stated that the EPA has used emissions multipliers to 
scale up average hourly emissions in air dispersion modeling for other 
risk assessments.\98\ The commenter asserted that although emission 
multipliers in risk assessments still underestimate risk, these 
assessments show the EPA recognizes the need to use multipliers in 
assessing health risks from short-term emissions. The commenter stated 
that it is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA not to use an emissions 
multiplier for estimating risk for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See, e.g., National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Emissions: Group IV Polymers and Resins; Pesticide 
Ingredient Production; and Polyether Polyols Production; Proposed 
Rule, 77 FR 1268, 1279 (Jan. 9, 2012) (finalized at 79 FR 17340 
(Mar. 27, 2014); see also National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production, 79 FR 60238, 60252 (Oct. 6, 
2014) (applying ``an emission adjustment factor'' to ``average 
annual hourly emission rates . . . to account for emission 
fluctuations due to normal facility operations''); National 
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Residual Risk and 
Technology Review for Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production, 78 FR 
66108, 66122 (Nov. 4, 2013) (applying ``a conservative default 
emissions multiplier of 10 to estimate the peak hourly emission 
rates from the average rates'' as part of EPA's screening of 
``worst-case acute impacts''); National Emissions Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Mineral Wool Production and Wool 
Fiberglass Manufacturing, 76 FR 72770, 72785 (Nov. 25, 2011) 
(applying an ``emissions multiplier of 3 to estimate the peak hourly 
emission rates from the average rates'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that the EPA's calculation of 1-hour 
emissions assumed plants are operating (and generating emissions) 24 
hours per day, 365 days per year. The commenter noted that averaging 
hourly emissions over the full calendar year produces lower hourly 
emissions than if the EPA had used each plant's actual operating hours. 
The EPA has information about each plant's operating hours and these 
data show many units are not operating over the full calendar year. By 
calculating the 1-hour emissions based on 8,760 operating hours, the 
commenter asserted the EPA underestimated the risks of acute exposures 
over shorter spans of time.
    The commenter stated that because the EPA used short-term emissions 
that are neither conservative nor realistic, the EPA cannot conclude 
the standard assures ``an ample margin of safety.'' The commenter 
stated that in two other recent rulemakings, the EPA found information 
on short-term HCl emissions was insufficient to allow the EPA to 
evaluate ``whether a chronic health-based emission standard for HCl 
would ensure that acute exposures will not pose any health concerns.'' 
(75 FR 32031; 76 FR 25050). In these rulemakings, the commenter stated, 
the EPA did not proceed with risk-based standards due to the lack of 
this information. The commenter stated that the EPA is incorrectly 
proceeding with the proposed health-based standards without accounting 
for or quantifying peak short-term emissions.
    Response: The use of an emissions multiplier to convert annual 
emissions to peak 1-hour emissions (determination of peak emissions for 
comparison with 1-hour health benchmarks) for acute (short-term) risk 
calculations was not necessary for this analysis, because the HBEL 
determined for the category is being promulgated as a mass of HCl-
equivalent emitted per hour. Similarly, plant hours of operation need 
not be considered because the HBEL determined for the category is an 
hourly limit. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule for BSCP, 
``To assure that no source emits more than the 250 tpy HCl-equivalent 
limit in a single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the 
hourly equivalent of 250 tpy (57 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)'' 
(79 FR 75644). Similarly, for clay ceramics manufacturing, ``to assure 
that no source emits more than the 600 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a 
single hour, we propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly 
equivalent of 600 tpy (140 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions)'' (79 FR 
75661).
    The EPA concludes the risk analysis and subsequent standard meet an 
``ample margin of safety'' in accordance with the CAA. The proposed 
HBEL for the entire source category is based on an emissions level 
corresponding to a maximum noncancer HI of one at the highest impacted 
facility. All other facilities would have a lower risk than the highest 
risk facility. Further, as the standard is based on a 1-hour emission 
limit, in determining chronic impacts, the analysis conservatively 
assumes that each plant emits at the 1-hour HBEL for an entire year 
(8,760 hours).
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the EPA's evaluation of acute 
health risks, stating that the approach is inadequate and does not 
assure standards are based on a safe health threshold and include ``an 
ample margin of safety.'' Specifically, the commenter expressed concern 
that the proposed HBEL are based on the chronic dose-response 
information and not on thresholds for acute health risks. The commenter 
noted the EPA approximated exposures, used those estimates to develop 
HQ values, and concluded ``there is low potential for acute risk'' when 
the HQ values are less than or equal to one. If values above one were 
identified, then the EPA examined additional information to determine 
whether there was a potential for ``significant acute risks'' for those 
living near the facility. The commenter noted that the EPA did not 
explain why this method satisfies the CAA section 112(d)(4) requirement 
that health-based standards be set at a level that ensures ``an amply 
margin of safety'' for people living near the facility. The EPA's 
evaluation is designed to determine whether any facilities pose 
``significant acute risks''; however, the commenter stated that this is 
not the statutory standard, and such a determination would not signify 
that an ``ample margin of safety'' is included.
    The commenter stated that for HF, the EPA's evaluation identified 
numerous plants at which there were potential acute health risks. 
Specifically, the EPA found 23 BSCP facilities exceeded the HQ value 
for HF, with nearly half of those facilities exceeding the value by 
four- or five-fold. For the clay ceramics category, the EPA found that 
eight facilities exceeded the HQ value for HF. The additional analysis 
the EPA performed to determine whether these facilities posed 
``significant acute risks'' did not rule out the possibility of such 
``significant acute risks.'' For these facilities, the EPA focused its 
analysis on maximum offsite HQ values; however, the commenter noted 
that many of the maximum offsite HQ values exceed one, thereby 
indicating the potential for ``significant acute risks'' remained. The 
commenter asserted that the EPA provided no support for why values 
above one means there is no potential for ``significant acute risks.''
    The commenter disagreed with the EPA's assertion that there is no 
potential for ``significant acute risks'' because the risk assessment 
assumes there is a person present at the location and time where the 
maximum HQ value occurs and stated that relaxing conservative 
assumptions about exposure in individual instances is arbitrary and 
defeats the purpose of the evaluation. The EPA cannot pretend that the 
person is not present and ignore the potential for harm. The EPA's 
statement that a facility is not likely to emit only HF similarly 
provides no assurance of safety. According to the commenter, the EPA 
relaxed an assumption in the model because the model predicted an 
outcome the EPA did not like. The

[[Page 65503]]

commenter stated the EPA provided no basis for its assertion that a 
facility is unlikely to emit only HF or explain why a combination of HF 
(for which the EPA found a potential for ``significant acute risks''), 
HCl, and Cl2 emissions would not still pose ``significant 
acute risks.''
    The commenter stated that the EPA's use of acute exposure guideline 
levels (AEGLs) and emergency response planning guidelines (ERPGs) to 
assess acute risks cannot assure that exposure presents ``no risk'' of 
health effects at those concentrations. The AEGL and ERPG values were 
created for emergency exposure scenarios. The commenter stated that 
levels defined for ``once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures'' and 
``emergency'' chemical releases or accidents are not appropriate for 
measuring acute exposure risk. According to the SAB, indicated ``AEGL-2 
and ERPG-2 values should never be used in residual risk assessments 
because they represent levels that if exceeded could cause serious or 
irreversible health effects.'' \99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Memorandum from Science Advisory Board re: Review of EPA's 
Draft at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that because the AEGL and ERPG numbers would 
underestimate risk to the maximum exposed individual, AEGL and ERPG 
values do not indicate ``safe'' thresholds that protect health with 
``an ample margin of safety.'' For these reasons, the commenter 
contends AEGL and ERPG values should not be used to set CAA section 
112(d)(4) standards.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the EPA's acute 
assessment includes arbitrary decision-making and does not reflect an 
ample margin of safety. The EPA is not required to regulate based 
solely on the results of a conservative acute screening scenario which 
assumes that a person will be present at a specific location and during 
worst-case meteorological conditions. Rather, this initial screening 
scenario is used as a starting point in the assessment of the potential 
for acute effects.
    For HCl and Cl2, the acute REL values for the pollutants 
are not estimated to be exceeded even when using the screening 
scenario, and the acute REL for HF is estimated to be exceeded only by 
a factor of two for seven facilities using the screening scenario. The 
other cases of higher exceedances mentioned by the commenter are 
situations where the locations of the exceedances are on facility 
property and, therefore, not considered for public health. The acute 
REL is defined by CalEPA as ``the concentration level at or below which 
no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specified exposure 
duration. RELs are based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse 
health effect reported in the medical and toxicological literature. 
RELs are designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the 
population by the inclusion of uncertainty factors which are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties.
    Regarding the use of AEGL and ERPG values, the EPA does not rely 
exclusively upon these values for assessment of acute exposures. 
Rather, the EPA's approach is to consider various acute health effect 
reference values, including the California REL, in assessing the 
potential for risks from acute exposures. To better characterize the 
potential health risks associated with estimated acute exposures to 
HAP, and in response to a key recommendation from the SAB's peer review 
of the EPA's RTR risk assessment methodologies, we generally examine a 
wider range of available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than 
we do for our chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the 
SAB's acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and 
inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic 
reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays \100\ for 
HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e., 
occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk 
characterization. Because HCl, HF, and Cl2 all have 1-hour 
REL values, the maximum estimated 1-hour concentrations were compared 
to these values to assess the potential for acute health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference 
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific 
Health Effect Reference Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-09/061, and available on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the EPA's risk 
analysis ignored exposures from emissions of HCl, HF, Cl2, 
and other pollutants with similar biological endpoints from units 
subject to the proposed work practice standards, including emissions 
during startup and shutdown, and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and 
sanitaryware shuttle kilns. The commenter asserted that even though the 
EPA stated that the work practice standards are intended to minimize 
emissions, these sources are not included in the calculation of the CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standards, and exposures to emissions from these 
other sources will contribute to an individual's cumulative health 
risks. The commenter asserted that the EPA does not know whether the 
proposed HBEL will provide ``an ample margin of safety'' once emissions 
from periods of startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic 
kilns and sanitaryware shuttle kilns are added to the levels of 
pollution permitted by the proposed standards. For this reason, the 
commenter stated that the proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) standards are 
unlawful and arbitrary.
    The commenter also stated that emissions during startup and 
shutdown are expected to be uncontrolled, because the EPA did not 
propose to require that BSCP and clay ceramics plants use APCD or other 
methods to reduce emissions (such as mandating the use of clean fuels) 
during these periods. The proposed work practice standards for periodic 
and shuttle kilns do not require control technology and, according to 
the commenter, are not anticipated to reduce emissions.
    Finally, the commenter stated that the only reason startup and 
shutdown periods and periodic and shuttle kilns are not subject to the 
proposed CAA section 112(d)(4) limits is because the EPA exempted them 
from CAA section 112(d). The commenter stated that it is arbitrary to 
exclude those emissions from the health analysis solely because the EPA 
proposed to regulate those sources of emissions under a different 
subsection of the CAA. The commenter argued all exposures contribute to 
the risk of harm, regardless of whether they are CAA section 112(d)-
regulated emissions or section CAA 112(h)-regulated emissions.
    Response: The EPA disagrees that emissions during periods of 
startup and shutdown and emissions from BSCP periodic kilns and 
sanitaryware shuttle kilns will exceed the numerical HBEL. Regarding 
the standards for periods of startup and shutdown, as noted in the 
preamble to the proposed rule and further documented in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291,\101\ temperature is the main factor affecting 
full production at BSCP plants. The kiln cars should be introduced into 
the kiln at a steadily increasing push rate to facilitate development 
of that specific kiln's firing temperature profile. Since emissions are 
generated from the firing of the bricks and the fuel combusted, the EPA 
has concluded that the maximum magnitude of emissions will occur when 
all kiln cars have been

[[Page 65504]]

loaded with the maximum number of bricks and the maximum amount of fuel 
is used. During startup, kiln operators will limit production until the 
kiln has heated enough to begin normal operation. This is the point 
whereby the standard transitions from a work practice to a numeric 
limit. The opposite process occurs during shutdown. Fuel use will 
decrease significantly so as to cool the kiln, and kiln operators will 
slow production to a stop. Since emissions will be lower below this 
point of maximum loading and fuel use, emissions will not rise above 
the emission limit for all pollutants, including the acid gas limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Email from Susan Miller, BIA, to Sharon Nizich and Keith 
Barnett, EPA. ``Additional documents.'' Dated June 25, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The owner or operator of each kiln will be required to determine 
the startup production rate for the kiln. For kilns with an APCD, the 
owner or operator will determine the minimum inlet temperature for the 
APCD. For kilns that, through compliance testing once the compliance 
date has been reached, have shown they are emitting under the emission 
limits and thus do not have an APCD, the owner or operator will 
determine the product-specific kiln temperature profile that must be 
achieved before the kiln can reach full production. The startup 
standards will be tied to the startup production rate never being 
exceeded until the kiln reaches the minimum inlet temperature for the 
APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is 
applicable. During shutdown, once the kiln falls below the minimum 
inlet temperature for the APCD or the product-specific kiln temperature 
profile, whichever is applicable, no additional product can be 
introduced. These temperature limits will be required to be included in 
the facility's records and kept on site. Thus, for periods of startup 
and shutdown, the HBEL set for HCl, HF, and Cl2 will not be 
surpassed during startup and shutdown.
    In the case of sanitaryware shuttle kilns, the commenter is 
mistaken that we did not mandate the use of clean fuels. The rule does 
limit the fuels used to natural gas or equivalent, and also outlines 
work practice standards relative to temperature cycles and maintenance 
procedures designed to minimize HAP emissions (see Table 3 to subpart 
KKKKK). The use of clean fuels applies for all times the kiln is 
running, not just startup and shutdown. Therefore, the commenter is 
incorrect that we are not requiring the use of clean fuels for startup 
and shutdown relative to the operation of shuttle kilns.
    The EPA also disagrees that just because the proposed work practice 
standards for periodic and shuttle kilns do not reflect the use of any 
control technology, they are not anticipated to reduce emissions. As 
the commenter has stated elsewhere, control technologies are not the 
only means of limiting emissions. Control of parameters such as fuel, 
operating temperature, combustion conditions, and throughput are also 
effective means of limiting emissions, and these are the types of 
parameters the EPA considered when finalizing the work practice 
standards for periodic and shuttle kilns.
    As discussed in the proposal at 79 FR 75662, CAA section 112(h)(1) 
states that the Administrator may prescribe a work practice standard or 
other requirements, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 
112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an emission standard. 
Section 112(h)(2)(B) of the CAA further defines the term ``not 
feasible'' in this context to apply when ``the application of 
measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not 
practicable due to technological and economic limitations,'' which is 
the case here. There are fewer BSCP periodic kilns and first-fire 
sanitaryware shuttle kilns compared to tunnel kilns, and they tend to 
be low-emitting sources compared to tunnel kilns,\102\ so their 
emissions will not cause an exceedance of the health threshold. The 
work practice standards we are finalizing will serve to ensure that 
emissions from these sources continue to remain low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ For example, even assuming that lb/ton emissions are 
similar for BSCP periodic and tunnel kilns, a comparison of annual 
kiln design capacities (ton product/yr) for model BSCP periodic 
kilns and tunnel kilns indicates that annual capacities for periodic 
kilns are on average only 5 percent of annual capacities for tunnel 
kilns. (For the basis of this calculation, see the memorandum 
``Updated Inventory Database and Documentation for Brick and 
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing Final Rule'' in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 and the memorandum ``Final Rule: Documentation 
of Database and Responses to the 1997 Information Collection Request 
for Brick and Structural Clay Products'' in Docket ID No. A-99-30.) 
In addition, in the BSCP industry, there are currently 120 periodic 
kilns located at 15 facilities, compared to 168 tunnel kilns at 84 
facilities. In the sanitaryware industry sector, there are currently 
five first-fire shuttle kilns, compared to 11 first-fire tunnel 
kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that, to create standards that assure 
``an ample margin of safety,'' the EPA is required to build a margin 
into the HBEL for exposures to HCl, HF, Cl2, and other 
pollutants with similar biological endpoints resulting from (a) 
exceedances of the HCl, HF, and Cl2 standards, (b) 
violations of the work practice standards applicable during startup and 
shutdown, and (c) exceedances of other standards (e.g., MACT standards 
for non-Hg HAP metals) that restrict pollutants with similar biological 
endpoints. The commenter also stated that estimating short-term 
emissions by averaging annual emissions does not reflect emissions 
spikes that occur during plant malfunctions or upsets. The commenter 
stated that malfunctions and upsets increase emissions and thereby pose 
increased health risks that the EPA must consider.
    The commenter stated that relevant chronic exposures include 
exposures from exceedances and violations and noted that many 
exceedances, such as those from malfunctions and upsets, are likely to 
contribute significant emissions that can elevate an individual's total 
exposures over time. The commenter also stated that the EPA explains 
malfunction events can be significantly higher than emissions at any 
other time of source operation (79 FR 75626). The commenter stated that 
these emissions pose much higher short-term risks and can accumulate 
and combine to increase public health impacts and risk and that 
guarding against the health risks of releases of large amounts of HF 
(for example) must be built into the HBEL through the margin of safety. 
The commenter stated that HF exhibits characteristics in some 
circumstances that can make it uniquely hazardous over large areas. For 
example, HF molecules may associate with one another (i.e., form larger 
molecules like H4F4, H6F6, 
H8F8) via hydrogen bonding and such molecules may 
form a cloud that is heavier than air, therefore less likely to 
disperse.
    The commenter stated that, by not accounting for exposures from 
exceedances, the EPA assumed that such exceedances will be zero and 
built in no additional protections in case exceedances do occur. The 
commenter claimed that there is no factual basis for assuming that 100 
percent of BSCP and clay ceramics facilities will comply with each of 
the relevant emissions limits 100 percent of the time. Over the long 
term and across the population of regulated facilities, the commenter 
noted that it is predictable that a number of exceedances will occur at 
facilities. The commenter stated it is unlawful to ignore emissions and 
the resulting health risks from those exceedances and argued the 
additional risk from exceedances should not be ignored in risk 
assessments.
    The commenter stated that EPA regularly uses statistical methods 
and probability factors to assess health risk due to exceedances and to 
set clean air standards, and the EPA has data available to calculate 
representative factors to assess the health risk from

[[Page 65505]]

malfunctions or can collect information on major sources' malfunction 
and violation histories.\103\ If the EPA needs more refined data 
regarding these emissions, the commenter suggested the EPA may request 
additional data from sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See, e.g., EPA, Enforcement and Compliance History Online 
(ECHO), www.epa.gov/echo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter stated that it is irrelevant that exceedances are a 
result of a failure to comply with the law when the EPA is setting CAA 
section 112(d)(4) standards, which must be set at a level that protects 
health. It does not matter to a person whether the pollution he or she 
is breathing is a result of a permitted or unpermitted release; the 
commenter argued the EPA cannot turn a blind eye to the reality that 
compliance with its standards is not perfect.
    Response: The HBEL was determined based on the assessment of acute 
affects at the worst-case facility with respect to meteorology and 
distance to receptor and is protective of most facilities even if they 
had SSM event emissions. Even for the worst-case facility, the SSM 
emissions event would need to be coincident with the worst-case 
meteorological conditions, which is not likely if SSM events are not 
frequent. For chronic risk, SSM emissions are not significant compared 
to the HBEL level, and most facilities are well below an HI of one with 
emissions at the HBEL level.
    The commenter is correct that the EPA did not include malfunctions 
and upsets emissions in setting emissions limits. As noted in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (79 FR 75626), malfunctions ``are, by 
definition sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures 
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment.'' The preamble 
also stated that ``accounting for malfunctions in setting emission 
standards would be difficult, if not impossible, given the myriad 
different types of malfunctions that can occur across all sources in 
the category and given the difficulties associated with predicting or 
accounting for the frequency, degree and duration of various 
malfunctions that might occur. For these reasons, the performance of 
units that are malfunctioning is not `reasonably' foreseeable.'' It 
should also be noted that sources cannot conduct performance tests 
during periods of malfunction (40 CFR 63.8445(e) and 40 CFR 63.8595(d)) 
and there are no continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) in 
place in the BSCP industry.
    The EPA disagrees that it is required to evaluate the ample margin 
of safety provided by a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard based on the 
level of emissions that could occur during an exceedance of the 
standard caused by a malfunction or any other cause. When the EPA 
establishes a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4), the EPA evaluates 
the ample margin of safety based on what sources will emit when they 
are meeting the standard (which applies at all times including periods 
of malfunction) and does not include some additional margin of safety 
to compensate for periods of time that sources may violate the 
standard. This is consistent with how the EPA evaluates standards under 
CAA section 112(f)(2) (in that the EPA's evaluation of the ample margin 
of safety under that review looks at the emissions allowed under the 
standard, not emissions that might occur when the standard is 
exceeded).
    Regarding the comment that the standard is not health protective 
for emissions of HF, the proposed rule determined the HCl equivalent 
emissions for HF by the ratio of the RfC value for each pollutant, such 
that a 250 tpy emission of HCl is equivalent to 175 tpy emissions of 
HF. By performing a risk analysis for each facility/kiln, the EPA 
demonstrated that these emissions limits are protective of both chronic 
and acute risks.
    Regarding the comment that HF exhibits release characteristics that 
may make it uniquely hazardous over large areas, the EPA notes that the 
commenter did not include data or information supporting their 
assertion that plumes of acid gases from BSCP facilities could become 
heavier than air. The commenter's example case of the formation of 
dense clouds of acid gases is from studies performed on the 
vaporization of liquefied gaseous fuels from spills, and the commenter 
did not explain how this scenario is relevant to the emission of acid 
gases formed in BSCP kilns. In the absence of evidence suggesting that 
clouds of dense gases are formed from BSCP facilities, and without a 
suggested alternate modeling methodology, the EPA used its preferred 
model AERMOD for dispersion for BSCP facilities.
7. Other Issues
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must account for the 
variability in emissions measured by compliance testing to measure 
whether each plant's emissions meet the HBEL because that testing does 
not capture a source's variance in emissions performance over time. The 
commenter noted that the EPA already recognizes this fact for stack 
tests for technology-based standards. The EPA has stated that it lacks 
a high degree of confidence that stack tests capture variation in 
emissions over time, and the commenter noted that as a result of this 
variance, it can be expected that the compliance tests would not be 
accurate. The commenter asserted that if the EPA believes that 
measurement variability needs to be corrected for, then it is 
irrational and arbitrary to correct for it with one set of standards 
(MACT standards) and not another (health-based standards), when they 
both rely upon emissions data from stack tests. The commenter noted 
that the EPA's proposal to account for variability for MACT standards 
but not for compliance with the HBEL would result in weaker and less-
protective standards in both cases.
    Response: Variability in emissions would not have a significant 
impact on the estimated risks associated with the HBEL. For chronic 
exposures and risks, the estimates are based on long-term (annual) 
emissions, so short-term emissions variability would not impact the 
estimates of chronic risks as long as the annual emissions, on average, 
do not exceed the limit. For acute exposures and risks, short-term 
emissions variability that causes emissions to exceed the 1-hour HBEL 
would increase the potential for acute health effects, but the 
likelihood of such effects is low because the emissions variability 
would have to occur at the small number of facilities we estimated as 
having the highest acute HQs based on the emissions limits, and the 
emissions variability would have to coincide with worst-case 
meteorological conditions even at those facilities to result in acute 
HQs higher than those we estimated based on the HBEL. Most facilities 
have acute HQ estimates significantly below one, so short-term 
emissions variability would have to be high (approximately 60 percent 
higher for the median facility) for the estimated HQs to approach a 
value of one.
    The EPA also notes that the HBEL was not established using 
emissions data from stack tests. Therefore, there was no need to 
account for variability in setting the HBEL as was done for the Hg and 
non-Hg HAP metals standards. Instead, the standard was established at a 
conservative level to ensure that the HQs remain below one for all 
facilities. The EPA agrees that there would be variability in the test 
results used to demonstrate compliance with the rule, but as already 
noted in this response, short-term emissions variability would have to 
be high for the estimated HQs to approach a value of one. In addition,

[[Page 65506]]

variability is not considered when comparing compliance testing results 
to any other emissions limit, so it would be inconsistent for the EPA 
to require owners and operators to adjust their test results before 
comparing those results to the HBEL.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the EPA should require fence-
line ambient air quality monitoring that measures multiple pollutants 
in real-time or near real-time to ensure that people are not being 
exposed to ambient pollutant concentrations that exceed the proposed 
HBEL. The commenter recommended the EPA also require real-time public 
reporting of the monitoring data.
    In addition, the commenter suggested that the EPA should require 
facilities to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action 
plans for agency review and public comment. These requirements would 
ensure concerned community members have the ability to review and 
recommend improvements to monitoring plans before they are implemented 
and would enable the EPA to consider community concerns when deciding 
whether to approve a plan.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. Because stack 
emissions can travel for long distances and are at heights above where 
a fence-line monitors would measure, it is inappropriate to use fence-
line monitoring for stack emissions. Fence-line monitoring is performed 
for fugitive emissions (see discussion of fence-line monitoring use on 
fugitive emissions at 79 FR 36919, Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and 
Technology Review and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule). 
In response to the comment that the EPA should require all facilities 
to submit monitoring plans, data, and corrective action plans for 
agency review and public comment, the EPA notes that these requirements 
are indeed in the rule, as facilities are required to submit monitoring 
plans, data and corrective actions for the regulatory agency review. 
However, in most cases, these submissions are required to be sent to 
the delegated authority, and the follow-up to that review, is left to 
the discretion of the delegated authority.

B. BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP

1. MACT Floors
a. Sources in MACT Floor Pool
    One commenter stated that the DC Circuit held that the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP published on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690) violated 
the CAA in a number of ways (Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875 (D.C. 
Cir. 2007)). The court held that, in setting MACT floors for brick 
tunnel kilns, the EPA's exclusion of kilns employing non-DLA controls 
from its ranking and identification of the best performing sources was 
unlawful because CAA section 112(d)(3) ``requires floors based on the 
emission level actually achieved by the best performers (those with the 
lowest emission levels).'' Id. In addition, the court recognized that 
factors other than pollution control technology affect performance 
(e.g., clay type), and the EPA cannot ignore such factors, even where 
the EPA finds that floors based on those factors would be unachievable.
    The commenter noted that the EPA is once again excluding best 
performing sources from its floor analysis and basing floors on a group 
of kilns using the EPA's preferred control technologies, in 
contravention of the holding of Sierra Club, which is the decision to 
which this rulemaking is intended to be a response. In the proposed 
rule, prior to ranking the best performing sources for the BSCP tunnel 
kiln floors for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) for existing 
and new sources, the EPA removed all kilns without a FF-based APCD. 
Once removed, those kilns were not included in the ranking of best 
performing sources, and hence they were not considered for inclusion 
among the best performing 12 percent of sources (for the existing 
source floor) or the best controlled similar source (for the new source 
floor). The commenter asserted that the agency's reprisal of a floor 
approach that the DC Circuit has already rejected repeatedly is not 
just unlawful, but amounts to contempt for the court's authority.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the 
EPA's proposed approach to calculating PM surrogate MACT floors for 
kilns was illegal in that it impermissibly excluded certain kilns. 
However, at proposal, we asked for comment on this approach and 
requested additional data to support this approach, and we did not 
receive any such additional data. In addition, some of the test data 
for sources with FF-based APCD could not be used in the final 
rulemaking because it was discovered that the testing was not carried 
out in accordance with the appropriate test method. Therefore, we can 
no longer assert that we have emissions data for all BSCP kilns with 
FF-based APCD. Thus, the EPA did not use the approach challenged by the 
commenter to establish the MACT floors in the final rule.
    The EPA has amended the approach to developing PM surrogate MACT 
floors for reasons explained in section IV.A.1 of this preamble, so 
these comments are now moot. However, the EPA still believes the 
approach to identify the best performing sources has merit. When the 
EPA has data on every single controlled source in the category, and 
these data support that these sources are the best performing, then 
basing the MACT floor on the top 12 percent of the total number of 
sources is appropriate.
b. Equivalent Limits
    Comment: One commenter stated that, in addition to the lb/ton MACT 
floors for emissions of Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP 
metals), the EPA developed two ``equivalent limits.'' The EPA used its 
ranking of the sources based on their ``average'' lb/ton emissions to 
identify the best performing source or sources for the floor pool. To 
develop the PM and Hg ``equivalent'' limits, the EPA took the best 
performing source or sources the EPA had selected and retrieved data on 
those sources' emission performance as measured by gr/dscf at 7-percent 
O2 for PM and Hg and lb/hr for Hg. For non-Hg HAP metals, 
the EPA proposed to set an additional standard that would limit the 
pounds of non-Hg HAP metals emitted per hour. For this additional 
limit, the EPA again used the ranking of the sources based on their 
``average'' lb/ton emissions and also (without any explanation) no 
longer used PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals, but instead set 
the limit in terms of total non-Hg HAP metals. The commenter stated 
that the EPA acknowledged that the available data on non-Hg HAP metals 
is incomplete, so to develop this proposed limit, the EPA simply took 
the final pounds of PM per ton of fired product floor limit that it had 
derived and applied a set of ``conversion factors'' it invented to put 
that standard in terms of pounds of non-Hg HAP metal emissions per 
hour. The commenter stated the EPA used completely different 
``conversion'' methodologies for the new and existing standards because 
the EPA lacks even the limited data it used for the existing source 
methodology on new sources.
    The commenter stated the ``equivalent'' limits the EPA proposed are 
not ``equivalent'' and Congress did not give the EPA the authority to 
set multiple limits and allow sources to comply with whichever limit 
they choose. The commenter stated the EPA's use of different measures 
of performance to identify the top sources on the one hand and to 
evaluate their performance on the other is inconsistent, irrational, 
and unexplained; the same metric should

[[Page 65507]]

apply for purposes of identifying the best performers and identifying 
those sources' actual performance. The commenter also stated the EPA 
did not use the best performing 12 percent of existing sources ``for 
which the Administrator has emissions information'' for the non-Hg HAP 
metals lb/hr limit.
    Another commenter supported the EPA's inclusion of multiple formats 
for both PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg. The commenter stated that the 
inclusion of each of these formats, as well as the inclusion of small 
and large kiln subcategories, provides needed flexibility to numerous 
BSCP facilities, including a large number of small businesses, to find 
that standard that best suits their operations while still ensuring 
that the CAA requirements are met. The commenter asserted that the 
inclusion of three alternate compliance formats is so critical to the 
development of this standard that the EPA must re-propose this rule if 
it maintains numeric limits but deletes any of these alternative 
formats for the final rule.
    Response: The EPA appreciates all comments regarding the 
alternative limits. The EPA is retaining the alternative limits in the 
final rule but is revising the ranking methodology as described in 
section IV.A.2 of this preamble. For the final rule, the concentration 
floor is based on the ranking of the concentration data, and the lb/hr 
floor is based on the ranking of the lb/hr data. Each floor is based on 
the best performing units for that unit of measurement.
c. Oxygen Correction
    Comment: One commenter stated, regarding the concentration 
compliance limits, that the use of the equation to correct measured 
concentrations to 7-percent O2 could be problematic when 
used to correct concentrations measured in stacks with high 
O2 content, which is typical of the brick industry. The 
commenter stated because the correction term is in the denominator of 
the equation for the correction to 7-percent O2, the overall 
correction factor increases exponentially as O2 
concentrations approach 20.9 percent. As a result, any variances in the 
O2 measurement are greatly magnified in the correction 
factor for kilns with high stack O2 content. The commenter 
suggested that the correction factor should be the average 
O2 content represented in the respective floors, 17- percent 
O2 (based on a range of O2 stack contents for 
BSCP kilns from 13 to 20 percent). The commenter asserted that the 
correction to an average of 17-percent will minimize the artificial 
inflation of the results for the industry.
    Response: The EPA evaluated the O2 content of the run-
by-run datasets of PM and Hg for BSCP tunnel kilns as described in 
section IV.A.1 of this preamble and agrees that correcting 
concentration data to 17-percent O2 rather than 7-percent, 
as proposed, provides more representative values of kilns' operating 
conditions and would not artificially inflate the values. For the final 
rule, the EPA has taken the O2 percent analysis into 
consideration and revised the equivalent concentration based limits to 
be developed from 17-percent O2-corrected concentration 
data.
2. Startup and Shutdown
    Comment: Numerous commenters supported the use of work practice 
standards for periods of startup and shutdown but asserted that the 
startup and shutdown procedures listed in the proposed rule cannot be 
met by all BSCP kilns and must be modified. Commenters requested that 
the final language allow a more basic construct for the work practice 
requirements in the final rule and require facilities to develop site-
specific temperatures as part of their permitting process.
    Multiple commenters specifically stated that the requirement for an 
exhaust temperature of 400[emsp14][deg]F at startup is not workable 
because the kiln exhaust temperature in some kilns never reaches 
400[emsp14][deg]F. Commenters also noted that kilns must have product 
at startup. Therefore, commenters requested that the startup provisions 
apply to the introduction, or charging, of new brick or structural clay 
product through a kiln and not impact the initial staging of kiln cars 
in a kiln before start-up. Commenters suggested revisions to the 
proposed language to ``not put any bricks into the kiln'' below 
specified temperatures.
    Multiple commenters agreed with the language that requires a kiln 
to vent to an APCD before the exhaust gas reaches 400[emsp14][deg]F, 
because it can vent at any time up to that temperature. Multiple 
commenters stated that for a controlled kiln, it is acceptable to 
require that no new product is allowed to be introduced to the 
controlled kiln until the kiln is vented to an APCD. One commenter 
stated that a feasible work practice standard would be for the exhaust 
gases to be vented through the APCD during the startup process, with 
the reagent feed started on an intermittent basis during this period 
and then brought up to full feed rate once the exhaust temperature has 
reached the normal operating temperature range.
    A few commenters also requested specific revisions to the 
production requirements for periods of shutdown. One commenter stated 
that during shutdown, a kiln operator would not be pushing any cars in 
the kiln after reaching a range of 250 to 300[emsp14][deg]F in the 
exhaust stack (depending on the type of kiln and its operating 
parameters). The commenter asked that a minimum operating range be 
allowed during a shutdown cycle. Another commenter noted that a 
limitation for a kiln to cease charging in new product before a kiln 
stops venting to an APCD may be a reasonable alternative to temperature 
requirements.
    Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and additional information 
received following proposal as described in section IV.A.4 of this 
preamble. As a result, the EPA has revised the work practice standards 
for periods of startup and shutdown for BSCP tunnel kilns to provide 
requirements that are more representative of the best performing kilns. 
Specifically, instead of defining the minimum inlet APCD temperature as 
400 [deg]F, the EPA is requiring the owner or operator to determine the 
minimum inlet temperature for each APCD. If a kiln does not have an 
APCD, the owner or operator is required to determine the product-
specific kiln temperature profile that must be achieved before the kiln 
can reach full production. In addition, instead of specifying that no 
product can be introduced to the kiln during startup, the EPA is 
requiring the owner or operator to determine the production rate needed 
to start up the kiln. The final startup standards specify that this 
startup production rate cannot be exceeded until the kiln exhaust 
reaches the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the product-specific kiln 
temperature profile, whichever is applicable. The final shutdown 
standards specify that no additional product can be introduced once the 
kiln exhaust falls below the APCD minimum inlet temperature or the 
product-specific kiln temperature profile, whichever is applicable.

C. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

1. Authority
    Comment: Two commenters argued that the EPA has no legal authority 
to finalize major source NESHAP for the ceramic tile manufacturing 
industry \104\

[[Page 65508]]

because there are currently no existing major sources in that industry 
sector that will be subject to the standards. Specifically, they argued 
that CAA section 112(d)(1) only provides the EPA authority to regulate 
a category or subcategory if it has major sources. Commenters contended 
that, here, ceramic tile manufacturing facilities that emit HAP have 
all become synthetic area sources and so are subject to the ``area 
source'' NESHAP regulation. Thus, they argue, the law does not allow 
the EPA to proceed with a major source standard for these 
subcategories. Both commenters also stated that the CAA does not give 
the EPA the authority to regulate ``just-in-case'' there is a major 
source in the future, and the EPA may only regulate categories and 
subcategories that currently have major sources in them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ There are three distinct sectors within the clay ceramics 
manufacturing industry: ceramic floor tile manufacturing, ceramic 
wall tile manufacturing, and sanitaryware manufacturing. These 
comments address the regulation of HAP emissions from ceramic floor 
tile manufacturing and ceramic wall tile manufacturing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter stated that the EPA should not devote resources to 
finalizing these regulations when those regulations would apply to no 
one, and, thus, will have no environmental benefits. The commenter 
stated that it is the EPA's duty to responsibly steward the public 
resources with which it has been entrusted to use in fulfillment of its 
mission, and using these resources to issue regulations that will 
regulate no one fails to satisfy that responsibility. Issuing such 
regulations is expensive for the regulated community and has the real 
potential to create unintended, inaccurate impressions of the industry, 
its emissions and its products. It serves no public purpose, and will 
impose short and long term costs on the EPA, and long term costs on 
delegated states as an unfunded mandate and on the tile manufacturing 
industry, 79 FR 75671 (Dec. 18, 2014).
    The commenter argued that, because the EPA's promulgation of 
standards for the ceramic tile industry is not authorized by the CAA, 
finalizing such standards would violate Articles I and II of the U.S. 
Constitution because it is an attempt by the EPA to rewrite portions of 
the CAA when the power to enact laws is reserved to Congress. The 
commenter stated that Congress provided clear instructions to the EPA, 
in the unambiguous numerical definition of ``major source,'' as to 
which industry categories or subcategories could be regulated by major 
source NESHAP standards. The commenter noted that the Supreme Court 
very recently stated: ``An agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms 
to suit its own sense of how the statute should operate.'' Util. Air 
Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S.Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014). Further, the Court 
stated: ``We are not willing to stand on the dock and wave goodbye as 
EPA embarks on a multiyear voyage of discovery.'' 134 S.Ct. at 2446. 
The commenter asserted that the Supreme Court's concerns in the UARG 
case are instructive here because, as in the UARG case, the statute 
creates unambiguous numeric thresholds defining a major source: the 
emission of 10 tpy any one HAP or the emission of 25 tpy in the 
aggregate of all HAP, 42 U.S.C. 9612(a)(l). The commenter contended 
that the Supreme Court supported the commenter's position when it 
stated that ``[i]t is hard to imagine a statutory term less ambiguous 
than the precise numerical thresholds . . .'' Id. at 2445.
    The commenter argued that the Sierra Club consent decree is 
irrelevant to the EPA's statutory authority and its limitations. The 
consent decree entered in the case of Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 F.2d 300 
(D.D.C. 2012) (hereafter the ``consent decree'') is germane to the 
timing of this rulemaking, but it does not, and legally could not, 
expand CAA section 112(d) to grant the EPA legal authority to regulate 
on the just-in-case basis the EPA has proposed. The withdrawal of the 
proposed NESHAP does not preclude the EPA from meeting its statutory 
obligations, fulfilling the requirements of the consent decree, and 
continuing its existing precedent. The EPA may issue final NESHAP for 
those subcategories within this category in which a major source 
exists. The ceramic tile manufacturing industry is not among them.
    The commenter argued that the proposed NESHAP would, if finalized 
as proposed, be arbitrary and capricious because the proposed NESHAP is 
based on hypothetical or imaginary manufacturing and air emissions 
control strategies, flawed data from an invalidated stack test method, 
and on statistically created emissions data. The EPA even proposed in 
places not to use actual emissions data.
    According to the commenter, the EPA's proposal, if finalized, would 
create an economic hurdle so high that no one in the industry would 
expand their business to the point of becoming a NESHAP major source. 
Further, a substantial number of these entities meet the definition of 
a ``small business'' as defined by the U.S. Small Business 
Administration (SBA). The result of this regulation, if finalized, 
would be to hand non-market-based economic advantages to foreign 
producers to grow their presence in the U.S. market by importing their 
competing ceramic tile. Financing of capital projects will be adversely 
affected by the costs imposed by the NESHAP, further raising the 
economic hurdle. Major source domestic manufacturing capacity will not 
be built, and the jobs and tax base that go along with that capacity 
will not be created.
    Response: Under CAA section 112(c)(1), the EPA first lists all 
categories and subcategories of major sources. It is at this first step 
that the EPA determines that a given category or subcategory contains 
major sources of HAP. Then, the EPA sets standards for those listed 
categories and source categories. Both CAA section 112(c)(2) and CAA 
section 112(d)(1) make clear that the EPA is to regulate all listed 
categories and subcategories. As CAA section 112(c)(2) states: ``For 
the categories and subcategories the Administrator lists, the 
Administrator shall establish standards . . .'' As CAA section 
112(d)(1) states: ``The Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
establishing emissions standards for each category and subcategory of 
major sources and area sources of hazardous air pollutants listed for 
regulation pursuant to subsection (c) of this section . . .'' In short, 
once a category or subcategory of major sources is listed under CAA 
section 112(c), it must be regulated. If commenters believe that the 
major source ceramic tile subcategories should not be regulated, they 
may seek to delete these subcategories from the list, which is a 
process that Congress established in CAA section 112(c)(9) and which 
the DC Circuit has held is the EPA's sole authority for removing a 
listed category or subcategory from the list. New Jersey v. EPA, 517 
F.3d 574, 581-583 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    In interpreting the relevant provisions here, the EPA is mindful of 
the recent and longstanding instructions from the Supreme Court that 
statutory provisions must be read to further rather than undermine 
Congress's statutory intent. King v. Burwell, 2015 U.S. Lexis 4248, *29 
(2015)(``We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own 
stated purposes.'')(citing and quoting New York State Dept. of Social 
Servs. v. Dublino, 413 U. S. 405, 419-420, 93 S. Ct. 2507, 37 L. Ed. 2d 
688 (1973)); E.I. Du Pont De Nemours v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 132 
(1977)(``We cannot, in these circumstances, conclude that Congress has 
given authority inadequate to achieve with reasonable effectiveness the 
purposes for which it has acted.'')(quoting Permian Basin Area Rate 
Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 777 (1968)). In this context, it is unreasonable 
to read

[[Page 65509]]

CAA section 112(d)(1) as limiting the EPA's authority to set standards 
that will be applicable to the highest emitting sources in a category 
or subcategory and creating a loophole by which major sources can evade 
regulation. Without suggesting that the following is the commenters' 
intent, the effect of the commenters' interpretation of CAA section 112 
would be that major sources would be able to evade regulation by, 
first, becoming synthetic area sources during the rulemaking process 
(which, under the commenters' view, would preclude the EPA from 
finalizing standards for major sources) and then, after the EPA 
withdraws the proposed standards, reconverting to be major sources and 
thus not subject to any standard. Consideration of this scenario is 
particularly appropriate in the circumstances here, because there are 
standards in place for area sources in the ceramic tile subcategories. 
It is not reasonable to interpret CAA section 112 to create a structure 
where an area source (whether a natural area source or a synthetic area 
source) has an incentive to increase emissions to become a major 
source, and by doing so is no longer subject to emissions limitations.
    Further, the issue of whether there are major sources in the 
ceramic tile subcategories is not as clear as the commenters presume. 
Even if, as the commenters contend, all of the existing major sources 
in these subcategories have successfully completed the process of 
becoming synthetic area sources, then these sources are not subject to 
the requirements imposed on major sources but that does not equate to a 
conclusion that they are no longer major sources in any respect. The 
EPA's view is that synthetic area sources, though subject to area 
source requirements rather than major source requirements, are still 
major sources in certain respects. For example, synthetic area sources 
are considered to be major sources when the EPA identifies the best 
performing major sources as part of a MACT floor calculation under CAA 
section 112(d). Further, CAA section 112(a)(1) defines a major source 
as ``any stationary source or group of stationary sources located 
within a contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons per 
year or more of any hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more 
of any combination of hazardous air pollutants.'' The reference to a 
source's ``potential to emit considering controls'' in this definition 
allows the interpretation that a source's potential to emit before and 
after controls is relevant, such that synthetic area sources may be 
considered within the meaning of this definition.
    With respect to the commenter's argument that CAA section 112 does 
not authorize ``just in case'' regulation, that is both not correct and 
off point. First, CAA section 112 clearly provides that the EPA will 
set standards for new sources in the listed categories and 
subcategories notwithstanding that the EPA can never know whether there 
will actually be any new sources. As required under CAA section 112, 
the EPA establishes new source standards ``just in case'' (to use 
commenter's phrasing) new sources come into existence. Second, as 
discussed above, it is reasonable for the EPA to promulgate major 
source standards where, as here, there are synthetic area sources that 
could revert to major sources just in case that happens.
    With respect to the commenters' argument that it is a poor use of 
agency resources for the EPA to finalize standards for the ceramic tile 
subcategories, the EPA has considered whether it is better to complete 
the current rulemaking with respect to the ceramic tile subcategories 
(and have them in place in the event that there are new major sources 
or a synthetic area source reverts to major source status) or to take 
no action now and re-do this rulemaking with respect to these 
subcategories in the event that there are major sources in the future. 
The EPA's conclusion is that, having gotten this far along in the 
rulemaking process, it is a better use of agency resources to finalize 
requirements for the ceramic tile subcategories now. Given the options, 
finalizing these requirements in this rulemaking requires only a modest 
amount of additional resources, and is a much more efficient use of 
agency resources than restarting and repeating the rulemaking process 
at some point in the future. Even if one considers that there may not 
be any major sources that become subject to these requirements and that 
such a rulemaking might not ever be done, the EPA's judgment is still 
that it is more efficient and a more cost-effective use of agency 
resources to finalize these requirements now. Finally, on the issue of 
how likely it is that major sources will be built in the future, the 
EPA notes that the commenters' own arguments suggest they will be. 
Specifically, the commenters stated that having a major source standard 
in place will dissuade companies from expanding small facilities into 
major sources and will impede financing for new major sources. The 
premise of such a comment is that, in the absence of a standard, there 
will be such expansions and new major sources.
    The document ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing: Background Information for 
Final Rule--Summary of Public Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 addresses additional comments on this topic.
    Comment: According to one commenter, the EPA failed to demonstrate 
that the benefits of this proposed arbitrary and capricious NESHAP 
justify the costs. As stated in Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' issued by President Obama on 
January 18, 2011 to reaffirm Executive Order 12866, ``[e]ach agency 
must . . . propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs.'' The preamble to 
the proposed NESHAP provides cost information (which the commenter 
noted elsewhere is erroneous) but did not discuss the benefits. The EPA 
only articulated the benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. With 
respect to costs, the EPA's cost analysis failed to account for costs 
to the agency and delegated states to promulgate and implement the 
regulations. There are no benefits to justify any of these costs. 
Further, ``[i]n deciding whether and how to regulate, agencies should 
assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, 
including the alternative of not regulating.'' The EPA did not assess 
the alternative of not regulating--a path that would have exactly the 
same result, as there are no major sources to be regulated or not 
regulated. Therefore, the commenter stated that the EPA failed to meet 
its burden; the proposed NESHAP does not have benefits justifying its 
costs, and therefore such a regulation cannot be adopted.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter. First, CAA section 112 
clearly states that the EPA is obligated to regulate emissions of HAP 
from listed source categories. There is no benefits test in the 
statutory requirement. The language in Executive Order 12866 does not 
supersede a clear legal requirement in the CAA. Second, because there 
are no major sources that will be regulated by this rule at the present 
time, there will be no implementation costs for the rule. If at a later 
date a major source is constructed, or a non-major source becomes 
major, then there will be implementation costs, but this rule will 
result in emission reduction requirements compared to the emissions 
that would be expected to occur in the absence of a rule. Therefore, at 
the point

[[Page 65510]]

where this rule actually results in costs, it will also have 
corresponding benefits. In the absence of any current major sources 
that will be covered by this rule, we simply cannot calculate the 
benefits.
2. MACT Floors
    Comment: One commenter disagreed with the inclusion of emissions 
data from Kohler's South Carolina facility tunnel kiln with the wet 
scrubber in the sanitaryware tunnel kiln existing source data pool for 
MACT floor determination. The commenter stated that Kohler installed a 
new tunnel kiln at the South Carolina facility in 2005 under the Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP promulgated in 2003, which, according to 
the commenter, required the installation of APCD on any new first-fire 
tunnel kilns to meet the HF and HCl emission limitations. The APCD that 
Kohler installed, a wet scrubber, was written into the facility's air 
permit at the time, and so its use at that time was federally 
enforceable. The court vacated the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP 
in 2007, and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 
Control revised the facility's air permit in March 2009, removing any 
reference to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and any requirement 
to operate the scrubber. Kohler then permanently shut down the scrubber 
in March 2009, though they continued to operate the tunnel kiln per 
permit requirements. Due to cost considerations, the scrubber was 
abandoned in place and not demolished/removed.
    The commenter noted that, when the EPA issued the information 
collection request (ICR) for clay ceramics emissions test data in 2010, 
the EPA required that Kohler make operational that wet scrubber for 
emissions testing of that tunnel kiln, even though the APCD was not 
listed in any permit nor required under any rule and had not been 
operated in 17 months. Initially, Kohler agreed to test the kiln as an 
existing source per operational requirements in the facility's air 
permit (i.e., without the wet scrubber). However, the EPA demanded that 
Kohler restart and operate the abandoned scrubber during the kiln's 
emissions testing. The commenter noted that Kohler cooperated with the 
EPA and tested emissions with the scrubber operating, but the scrubber 
was immediately shut down after testing. This scrubber has operated for 
a total of 1 week in the past 6 years, and that short period of 
operation was only to comply with the EPA's ICR testing demand.
    The commenter acknowledged that the EPA has the authority require 
operation of any permitted source for emissions testing under 
rulemaking and ICR protocol. The commenter agreed with the EPA that the 
``kiln'' in question is an existing source but disagreed that the non-
operating wet scrubber qualifies as part of an existing source. The 
commenter contended that the EPA is arbitrarily penalizing Kohler for 
not spending the money to demolish and remove the wet scrubber back in 
2009 when it was removed from the facility's air permit. The commenter 
asserted that the test data from the wet scrubber are not 
representative of any existing source and were not actually achieved in 
practice over time. Therefore, using the test data in the MACT floor 
analysis is inconsistent with the EPA's expressed intent to determine 
MACT floors for existing sources based on the average emissions 
actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources with 
consideration for variability in emissions over time. The commenter 
asserted that all emissions data from the wet scrubber should be 
excluded from the existing source data pool for MACT floor analysis, 
and the existing source floors should be recalculated for the remaining 
existing sources.
    Response: Data from the APCD the commenter refers to was considered 
in developing both the new and existing MACT floors for sanitaryware 
kilns. As stated by the commenter, the APCD was installed to comply 
with the previously promulgated Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP and 
thus was an available data point for collection through the CAA section 
114 data collection process for this rulemaking. Because this source 
had an operational APCD (even though it was not being operated), we 
believe that testing with the APCD operating would be most 
representative of the source's best performance as defined in the CAA. 
Having collected the emissions data for the source with the APCD 
operating, the EPA considered the data consistent with section 
112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA, under which the Administrator is required to 
calculate ``the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could 
reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory 
for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.'' Since it 
is appropriate to include the data in the database available to 
determine MACT floors, it is appropriate to use these data in floor 
calculations, if it is actually part of the best performing facilities. 
We note, however, that the data from this device was only significant 
for the existing source dioxin/furan MACT floor, for reasons that are 
dependent on each regulated pollutant and discussed as follows.
    For both new and existing PM MACT floors, the final limit was 
unaffected by use of these data, since the data from the APCD was not 
ranked in the top five sources with data.
    For both new and existing Hg MACT floors, the data from the APCD 
were not ranked because the data were invalidated. The data were 
removed from the dataset because of errors in the analytical procedures 
surrounding the digestion process as dictated by Method 29. See Section 
4.1: Analytical discrepancy of the Test Report ``Kohler Co., 
Spartanburg, SC: Tunnel Kilns and Glaze Spray Booths 08/11-17/2010 
Stack Test,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0069.
    For dioxin/furan, the data from the APCD are in the top five but is 
not the best performing unit based on the dioxin/furan ng/kg ranking. 
(Note the units of measure for dioxin/furan ranking have changed from 
the proposed ng/dscm at 7-percent O2 to ng/kg.) For the 
existing source floor, the result of the calculation of the best 
performing five sources is 3.3 ng/kg with the data point, and would 
have been 4.0 ng/kg without the data point, which we consider a nominal 
difference. The difference does not result in any source having to add 
controls. The calculation of the new source floor was not affected by 
the data from the APCD because, as stated above, the source was not the 
best performing unit, and the new source floor is based on the best 
performing unit.
    Comment: Three commenters questioned EPA's decision to propose the 
dioxin/furan emission limits for ceramic tile manufacturing and 
sanitaryware manufacturing in concentration format only. Two commenters 
stated that the final dioxin/furan standards should provide the option 
to comply with a limitation expressed in units of nanograms per 
milligram of tile produced, in addition to or in lieu of the proposed 
standard stated in ng/dscm. A mass-based production-related standard 
effectively removed the issues around O2 correction created 
by use of a standard based only on concentration. Further, the 
commenters asserted that it is a more universally appropriate 
adjustment for comparison of emissions from large kilns having high air 
flow rates to emissions from small kilns with low air volumes. The 
third commenter agreed and noted that the proposed

[[Page 65511]]

limits for PM and Hg are expressed as lb/ton fired product. The 
commenter asked EPA to explain how the concentration format for the 
emission limit is more appropriate for dioxins/furans than a mass 
throughput limit. If it is not, the commenter suggested using a mass 
throughput format for the dioxin/furan emission limit.
    Response: The dioxin/furan limits provided in the final rule for 
clay ceramics are in units of ng TEQ/kg of throughput fired or 
processed. The EPA agrees that this change in format eliminates the 
questions surrounding the O2 correction for concentration 
values and is more consistent with the other units of measure provided 
in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. To demonstrate compliance 
with the limits, the owner or operator will determine the mass TEQ for 
each test run (using the toxic equivalency factors in Table 5 to 
subpart KKKKK), divide the mass TEQ by the production rate during the 
test run, and average the test runs.
    The production-based dioxin/furan limits are provided in lieu of 
the proposed concentration limits. The compliance flexibility provided 
to the BSCP Manufacturing source category (including alternative 
compliance options for PM and Hg) was solely related to concerns under 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 
specifically reducing the regulatory burden of the numerous small 
entities in the BSCP category. There are no small businesses expected 
to be subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, so the EPA 
determined that no additional compliance flexibility was necessary or 
warranted for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category.
3. Startup and Shutdown
    Comment: One commenter challenged the proposed startup and shutdown 
regulations for ceramic tile manufacturing. The commenter asserted that 
these standards are based conceptually on the desire to minimize the 
time during which ceramic tile manufacturing process units operate in a 
temperature range that is ``conducive'' to the formation of new 
dioxins/furans (i.e., 200-450 degrees Celsius). The commenter stated 
that this concern is moot because there are no new dioxins/furans 
formed in the ceramic tile industry sector, based on the emissions data 
the EPA proposed to use to set MACT floors for ceramic tile sources and 
on the fact that ceramic tile dioxin/furan congener profiles are 
different from the profile of the dioxins/furans created as a product 
of combustion.
    The commenter also challenged the EPA's startup and shutdown 
proposal for spray dryers relative to dioxins/furans. The input to the 
spray dryer experiences no more than 212[emsp14][deg]F because the 
operational purpose of the spray dryer is to cause the excess moisture 
suspended or attached to the ball clay matrix to evaporate. If any 
spray dryer operating temperature is relevant to the EPA's concern 
about temperatures in a spray dryer conducive to dioxin/furan 
formation, this is the correct focus.
    For ceramic tile floor tile and wall tile roller kilns, the 
commenter stated that the proposed temperature requirements for startup 
and shutdown reflect good kiln production practices; therefore, the 
proposed startup and shutdown standards are unnecessary.
    The commenter noted that the standards are based only on data from 
the BSCP subcategory, and the proposed temperatures are not appropriate 
for all sources. For example, ceramic tile dryers uniformly operate 
below 400[emsp14][deg]F, so product could never be introduced to a tile 
dryer. The commenter also noted that the startup provisions require 
startup of APCD at 400[emsp14][deg]F. However, ceramic tile dryers do 
not have APCD because they burn only natural gas, their normal 
operating temperature is less than 400[emsp14][deg]F, and their 
resulting emissions are minimal. For these reasons, the proposal 
effectively constitutes a ban on the operation of tile dryers. If tile 
dryers are not an available manufacturing process, ceramic tile 
manufacturing as it is currently conducted in the United States would 
effectively cease at major sources. The commenter stated that the EPA 
lacks the legal authority to implement a de facto shut down of major 
sources, or to bar the possibility of the proposal of a major source, 
in this industry.
    For all the above reasons, the commenter asserted that the EPA must 
withdraw the startup and shutdown proposal from any final NESHAP for 
this subcategory. The commenter contended that, as proposed, these 
standards are arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: The CAA requires that NESHAP emissions limitations under 
section 112 must apply continuously, including during periods of 
startup and shutdown. As noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during 
periods of startup and shutdown; therefore, owners and operators would 
be unable to demonstrate compliance with the final numeric MACT 
standards during those periods. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing work 
practice standards for periods of startup or shutdown to ensure that 
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP includes continuous CAA section 
112-compliant standards.
    The commenter is correct that the specific startup and shutdown 
work practice standards proposed were based on information from the 
BSCP industry. In absence of any data on specific startup and shutdown 
procedures from the clay ceramics CAA section 114 survey, the EPA used 
the only data available for a similar industry. The EPA has not 
received any additional information from clay ceramics manufacturers on 
specific procedures, and in light of that lack of data, the EPA 
maintains that the less prescriptive startup and shutdown work 
practices being finalized for the BSCP industry are appropriate for the 
clay ceramics industry. First, one of the commenter's main points is 
that the specific temperatures that were proposed are not appropriate 
for all the types of units to which the standards were proposed to 
apply, which is consistent with comments received on the BSCP proposal. 
Second, the commenter did note that the proposed standards reflect good 
kiln production practices for one type of process unit for which the 
specific temperature was appropriate. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing 
work practice standards that are based on best practices but are less 
prescriptive than the proposed standards.
    As a final note, the EPA is clarifying in this response that the 
startup and shutdown standards are not intended to minimize only 
emissions of dioxins/furans. Instead, the standards are intended to 
minimize emissions of all pollutants by limiting the amount of 
throughput being processed before the unit reaches full production and 
limiting the amount of time the exhaust is not being routed to the 
APCD, if applicable. In addition, the proposed startup and shutdown 
work practice requirements did not require the use of an APCD, nor do 
the final standards. The standards only specify the requirements for 
routing exhaust to an APCD if one is present. The EPA has reviewed the 
language in the final rule to ensure the standards are clear.

VI. Summary of the Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

    Table 8 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions 
reductions for existing sources under the final BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP and final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The

[[Page 65512]]

costs include the costs of installing APCD as well as the costs for the 
testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate compliance.

                           Table 8--Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
                                                                     [2011 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cost (million)                                   Emissions reductions (tpy)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Non-Hg
                 Industry                                                                             HAP
                                             Capital     Annual       HF        HCl        Cl2       metals       Hg         PM     PM2.5 \c\     SO2
                                                                                                      \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP......................................      $64.6      $24.6        344       22.1       2.04       7.08     0.0733        643        309        205
Clay Ceramics.............................      0.267     0.0924          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring.
\b\ Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
\c\ PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

    The nationwide capital and annual costs of the APCD, testing, and 
monitoring needed to comply with the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 
are expected to total $64.6 million and $24.6 million, respectively 
(2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions reductions achieved under 
the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are expected to total 375 tpy. The 
methodology used to estimate the nationwide costs and emissions 
reductions of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented in the 
technical memoranda titled ``Development of Cost and Emission Reduction 
Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP'' and ``Monitoring and 
Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
    It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet 
the MACT floor emission limits in the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
NESHAP, so no emission control costs or emissions reductions are 
expected for these sources. However, these facilities are expected to 
incur $92,400 annually in monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate 
compliance with the final Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. These 
costs are documented in the technical memorandum titled, ``Monitoring 
and Testing Requirements and Costs for the Final Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
    There are no major sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic 
wall tile. The five facilities that were major sources at the time of 
the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken the necessary steps to 
become synthetic area sources. Consequently, none of the known tile 
facilities will be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no costs or emissions reductions 
are expected for tile affected sources under the final Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Table 9 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for 
existing sources under the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP.

                                                      Table 9--Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Secondary air emissions (tpy)                                      Energy
                            Industry                             ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------     impacts       Solid waste
                                                                        PM             PM2.5            CO              NOX             SO2             CO2         (MMBtu/yr)    impacts  (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP............................................................            3.40            1.14            5.74            45.6             133          27,900         461,000           5,210
Clay Ceramics...................................................               0               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ CO = carbon monoxide; CO2 = carbon dioxide; MMBtu/yr = million British thermal units per year.

    The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP include 
secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts. 
Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the 
increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to 
meet the promulgated limits (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity needed to operate the APCD, and solid waste impacts consist 
of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste 
(not reused or recycled).
    Under the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the nationwide secondary 
emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, CO, NOX and 
SO2 are expected to total 188 tpy, and secondary emissions 
of the greenhouse gas pollutant CO2 are expected to total 
27,900 tpy, with energy impacts of 461,000 MMBtu/yr and solid waste 
impacts of 5,210 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the nationwide 
secondary impacts of the final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP is presented 
in the technical memorandum, ``Development of Cost and Emission 
Reduction Impacts for the Final BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP'' in Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
    As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all 
sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits 
in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing final rule, so there are no 
secondary impacts expected for these sources. There are no major 
sources producing ceramic floor tile or ceramic wall tile. The five 
facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA 
surveys have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area 
sources. Consequently, none of the known ceramic tile facilities are 
expected to be subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP, which means that no secondary impacts are 
expected for ceramic tile affected sources under the final Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average national 
brick price under the promulgated standards increases by 1.8 percent or 
$4.37 per

[[Page 65513]]

1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) (2011 dollars), while overall 
domestic production falls by 1.5 percent or 52 million bricks per year. 
Under the promulgated standards, the EPA estimated that two to four 
BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
    Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for 
BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify 
that the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will not have a significant impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA 
initiated a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel and undertook 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
    For Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, one sanitaryware company owns 
major sources and will incur costs (for testing, monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting). That affected company is not a small 
business. The compliance costs are less than 0.002 percent of sales for 
the affected company. Hence, the economic impact for compliance is 
minimal. As noted above, there are no major sources producing ceramic 
floor tile or ceramic wall tile. Because no small firms face 
significant control costs, there is no significant impact on small 
entities. Thus, the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing regulation is not 
expected to have significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses, 
please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and 
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the benefits?

    Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of this rule 
will generate benefits by reducing emissions of HAP as well as criteria 
pollutants and their precursors, NOX and SO2. 
Sulfur dioxide and NOX are precursors to PM2.5, 
and NOX is a precursor to ozone. The criteria pollutant 
benefits are considered co-benefits for this rule. For this rule, we 
were only able to quantify the health co-benefits associated with 
reduced exposure to PM2.5 from changes in emissions directly 
emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. We 
estimate the monetized co-benefits of the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP in 
2018 to be $83 million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent 
discount rate and $75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-
percent discount rate, not including consideration of energy 
disbenefits. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and 
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits 
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall 
between these two estimates.\105\ A summary of the emission reduction 
and monetized co-benefits estimates for this BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 
at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is illustrated in Table 10 
of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Roman, et al., 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the 
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in 
the U.S.,'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

    Table 10--Summary of the Monetized PM[bdi2].[bdi5] Co-Benefits for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP 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 PM[bdi2].[bdi5]........             308  $83 to $190...............  $75 to $170.
PM[bdi2].[bdi5] precursors
    SO[bdi2]............................              72  $2.9 to $6.6..............  $2.6 to $6.0.
    NOX \c\.............................             -46  -$0.29 to -$0.66..........  -$0.26 to -$0.59.
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total monetized benefits........  ..............  $84 to $190...............  $76 to $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 PM[bdi2].[bdi5] through reductions of PM[bdi2].[bdi5] precursors, such as SO[bdi2] and directly
  emitted PM[bdi2].[bdi5]. 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 (NO[bdi2]), exposure to ozone, ecosystem
  effects or visibility impairment.
\b\ PM co-benefits are shown as a range from Krewski, et al. (2009) to Lepeule, et al. (2012). These models
  assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing
  premature mortality because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effects
  estimates by particle type.
\c\ These emission reductions are the net emission reductions from the rule after subtracting out secondary
  emission increases due to additional energy requirements to run the control equipment. These estimates do not
  include monetized CO2 disbenefits, which range from $0.3 to $3 million depending on the discount rate. See the
  RIA for more information about how the EPA monetized these disbenefits.

    These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized human 
health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from 
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this rule. 
Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to conduct air 
quality modeling for this rule. Instead, we used a ``benefit-per-ton'' 
approach to estimate the benefits of this rulemaking. To create the 
benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses a model to convert 
emissions of PM2.5 precursors into changes in ambient 
PM2.5 levels and another model to estimate the changes in 
human health associated with that change in air quality, which are then 
divided by the emissions in specific sectors. These benefit-per-ton 
estimates were derived using the approach published in Fann, et al. 
(2012),\106\ but they have since been updated to reflect the studies 
and population data in the 2012 p.m. National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) RIA.\107\ Specifically, we multiplied the benefit-
per-ton estimates from the ``Non-EGU Point other'' category by the 
corresponding emission reductions.\108\ All national-average benefit-
per-ton estimates reflect the geographic distribution of the modeled 
emissions, which may not exactly match the

[[Page 65514]]

emission reductions in this rulemaking and, thus, they may not reflect 
the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure, 
baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific 
location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-
ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support 
document, which is available as Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0089.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012. 
``Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of 
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission 
sectors across the U.S.'' Environment International 49 41-151.
    \107\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
    \108\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical 
support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5 
precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \109\ and the extended Six 
Cities cohort study.\110\ In the RIA for the final rule, which is 
available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, we also include 
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman, et al., 2008) 
as a characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-
mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, 
D. Krewski, K. Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer, 
Cardiopulmonary Mortalityand Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate 
Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 
287:1132-1141.
    \110\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J. 2012. ``Chronic 
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of 
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.'' Environ Health 
Perspect. July; 120(7):965-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature, 
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies, 
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \111\ 
documents the association between elevated PM2.5 
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased 
premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the 
EPA's independent SAB, concluded that the scientific literature 
consistently finds that a no-threshold model most adequately portrays 
the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. Therefore, in 
this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact function for fine 
particles is without a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we 
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide 
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological 
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less 
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5 
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these 
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level 
(LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data 
in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population 
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different 
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of 
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There 
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which 
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and 
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the 
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration 
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air 
quality improvements.
    For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not 
available due to time and resource limitations and, thus, we are unable 
to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this 
specific rule's emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As 
a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of 
the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source 
apportionment modeling used to calculate the 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 
model changes in air quality.
    Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change 
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by 
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and 
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to 
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties, we 
believe the benefit analysis for this rule provides a reasonable 
indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking under a 
set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include the type 
of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012 PM2.5 
NAAQS RIA \112\ because we lack the necessary air quality input and 
monitoring data to run the benefits model. In addition, we have not 
conducted air quality modeling for this rule, and using a benefit-per-
ton approach adds another important source of uncertainty to the 
benefits estimates. The 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS benefits analysis 
provides an indication of the sensitivity of our results to various 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291-0087.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates 
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit 
categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone 
exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. 
Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to 
provide monetized estimates for this rule, we include a qualitative 
assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for these 
promulgated standards.
    The specific control technologies for this rule are anticipated to 
have minor secondary disbenefits, including an increase of 41 tons of 
NOX, about 3 tons of PM, less than 6 tons of CO and 121 tons 
of SO2 each year. Because we do not currently have methods 
to monetize emission changes of CO, only secondary effects of PM, 
SO2, and NOX were included in the monetary 
evaluation of the actual benefits.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rule, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and 
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

[[Page 65515]]

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that 
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. 
Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 
documented in the dockets for this action. The EPA prepared an analysis 
of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis is contained in ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and 
Structural Clay Products NESHAP.'' A copy of the analysis is available 
in the docket for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291) and the analysis is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA's study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur 
total annualized costs of $24.6 million (2011 dollars) under the BSCP 
Manufacturing NESHAP, including costs of emission controls, testing and 
monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for facilities 
that have testing and monitoring. The EPA gathered information on firm 
sales and overall industry profitability for firms owning affected BSCP 
facilities. The EPA estimated that two to four BSCP manufacturing 
facilities are at significant risk of closure under the final 
standards.
    The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the final 
rule, as described in section VI of this preamble. These estimates 
reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases of 
morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to 
PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource and 
methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the 
benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits 
from reducing exposure to 375 tons of HAP each year for the promulgated 
standards, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment. In 
addition to reducing emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, 
this rule will reduce several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., 
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium) each 
year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co-benefits to be $83 
million to $190 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and 
$75 million to $170 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount rate 
on a yearly average in 2018 for the promulgated standards.
    Based on the EPA's examination of costs and benefits of the final 
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the 
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP will exceed the costs.
    The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated 
with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The remaining firm with 
major sources is estimated to incur costs as a result of the Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing final rule and the firm only incurs costs 
associated with testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total 
annualized costs are only $92,400 (2011 dollars) and the firm's 
estimated costs of complying with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
NESHAP are less than 0.002 percent of sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in the BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP have been submitted for 
approval to OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that the EPA prepared 
for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 
2509.01. The ICR document that the EPA prepared for the Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP has been assigned EPA ICR number 2510.01. You can 
find copies of the ICRs in the dockets for the BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, and they are briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information collected from respondents will be used by EPA 
enforcement personnel to: (1) identify new, modified, reconstructed and 
existing sources subject to the standards; (2) ensure that MACT is 
being properly applied; and (3) ensure that the APCD are being properly 
operated and maintained on a continuous basis. In addition, records and 
reports are necessary to enable the EPA to identify facilities that may 
not be in compliance with the standards. Based on the reported 
information, the EPA can decide which facilities should be inspected 
and what records or processes should be inspected at these facilities. 
The records that facilities maintain will indicate to the EPA whether 
the owners and operators are in compliance with the emission 
limitations (including emission limits, operating limits) and work 
practice standards. Much of the information the EPA would need to 
determine compliance would be recorded and retained onsite at the 
facility. Such information would be reviewed by enforcement personnel 
during an inspection and would not need to be routinely reported to the 
EPA.
    All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to EPA policies 
set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--Confidentiality of 
Business Information. (See 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; 
amended by 43 FR 39999, September 28, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 28, 
1978; and 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979.)
    Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in 
the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new and 
existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities. A BSCP facility 
manufactures brick, including face brick, structural brick, brick 
pavers, or other brick and/or structural clay products including clay 
pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded, 
dimensional clay products. The BSCP facilities typically form, dry and 
fire bricks and shapes that are composed primarily of clay and shale. 
Kilns are used to fire BSCP. The rule applies to all new and existing 
tunnel and periodic kilns at BSCP facilities.
    Potential respondents to the information collection requirements in 
the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP are owners and operators of new 
and existing sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. A clay 
ceramics facility manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, 
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics facilities 
typically form, dry and fire tile or sanitaryware products that are 
composed of clay, shale and various additives. Spray dryers are used 
during the forming process at tile facilities to process the ceramic 
mix into a powder to allow tile pressing. Dryers are used to reduce the 
moisture content of the ceramic products prior to firing. Glazes are 
applied to some tile and sanitaryware products, with glaze spraying 
accounting for all glazing emissions. Kilns are used to fire the 
ceramic products and include ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware 
tunnel and shuttle kilns. The rule applies to all existing, new and 
reconstructed affected sources, which include the kilns, glaze spray 
operations, ceramic tile spray dryers and floor tile press dryers. 
(Wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware

[[Page 65516]]

dryers, with no measurable emissions, are not covered.)
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emissions standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to 
the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies 
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the final rule includes 
paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5-year repeat 
testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of 
performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M 
plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment, 
compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction.
    Collection of data will begin after the effective date of the final 
BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. The 
compliance date for existing sources is 3 years after the effective 
date. The compliance date for new or reconstructed sources is the 
effective date if the source startup date is before the effective date, 
or upon startup if the startup date is on or after the effective date. 
The schedule for notifications and reports required by the rule is 
summarized below.
    For BSCP and clay ceramics facilities with existing affected 
sources, the initial notification stating that the facility is subject 
to the rule must be submitted no later than 120 calendar days after the 
effective date of the rule. Facilities with new or reconstructed 
affected sources for which startup occurs on or after the effective 
date must submit the initial notification no later than 120 calendar 
days after the source becomes subject to the rule (although we are 
projecting no new affected sources in the short term). Facilities may 
choose to submit a request to use the routine control device 
maintenance alternative standard no later than 120 calendar days prior 
to the compliance date. Facilities required to conduct a performance 
test must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test 
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to 
begin. For each initial compliance demonstration that includes a 
performance test, facilities must submit an initial notification of 
compliance status no later than 60 calendar days following the 
completion of the performance test. For each initial compliance 
demonstration that does not involve a performance test, facilities must 
submit an initial notification within 30 calendar days of completing 
the initial compliance demonstration. Records necessary to determine 
compliance with the emission limitations and work practice standards 
must be compiled on a daily basis, and compliance reports must be 
submitted to the Administrator on a semiannual basis. Repeat 
performance tests are to be conducted every 5 years to ensure ongoing 
compliance.
    There are 90 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of 
HAP, 84 of which have at least one tunnel kiln. An estimated 21 of 
these facilities are projected to become synthetic area sources by 
promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP standards. The remaining 
69 facilities (63 of which have a tunnel kiln) are expected to be 
subject to the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. For these 69 facilities, the 
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the BSCP 
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to be 20,963 labor hours per year, at a 
cost of $1,113,105 per year (yr). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    No capital costs associated with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping 
or reporting are expected to be incurred during this period. The annual 
operation and maintenance costs are estimated to be $682/yr.
    The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the 
first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 
to be 71 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $3,698/yr. (All 
costs are in 2011 dollars.)
    There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major 
sources of HAP and are expected to be subject to the Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing NESHAP. For these three facilities, the annual 
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics 
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the standards) is estimated to total 996 labor hours per year at a cost 
of $52,674/yr.
    As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs associated with 
monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be 
incurred during this period. The annual operation and maintenance costs 
are estimated to be $44/yr.
    The total burden for the federal government (averaged over the 
first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is estimated 
to be 4.6 labor hours per year, at a total labor cost of $239/yr. (All 
costs are in 2011 dollars.)
    Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come 
into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after 
promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests, 
inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance reports, 
records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the 
fourth year following promulgation.
    For the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average annual 
recordkeeping and reporting burden of 48,674 labor hours per year, at a 
cost of $2,702,447/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate 
annualized capital costs of $606,760/yr and annual operating and 
maintenance costs of $206,872/yr over this period, for a total 
annualized cost of $813,632/yr. The average annual burden for the 
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,891 labor 
hours per year, at a total labor cost of $204,550/yr. (All costs are in 
2011 dollars.)
    For the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, we estimate an average 
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 2,323 labor hours per 
year, at a cost of $122,786/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also estimate 
annualized capital costs of $72,050/yr and annual operating and 
maintenance costs of $27,069/yr over this period, for a total 
annualized cost of $99,119/yr. The average annual burden for the 
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 labor 
hours per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs 
are in 2011 dollars.)
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 
IRFA that examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities 
along with regulatory alternatives that could

[[Page 65517]]

minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review in the 
docket and is summarized here. We convened a SBAR Panel to obtain 
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that 
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of 
the IRFA and Panel recommendations are included at 79 FR 75669-75671.
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA 
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the 
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is included in Section 5 of 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products 
NESHAP,'' available for review in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291), and is summarized here.
1. Need for the Rule
    The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission 
standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of 
HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are 
applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the 
maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator's judgment, 
the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or 
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the 
BSCP source category are being finalized.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions 
standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the 
performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must 
be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved 
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the 
Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five 
sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section 
112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least 
as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best 
controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must 
consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When 
considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only 
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into 
account costs, energy and non-air environmental impacts when doing so. 
This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d).
3. Significant Issues Raised
    The EPA received comments on the proposed standards and requests 
for comment that were included based on SBAR Panel recommendations. See 
section V of this preamble and ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291 for more 
detailed comment summaries and responses.
     Work practices for dioxin/furan: One commenter stated that 
work practices for dioxin/furan emissions from BSCP tunnel kilns are 
not lawful under the CAA, and, even if they were, the work practices 
proposed are not sufficient to minimize dioxin/furan emissions. Other 
commenters supported the proposed work practices for dioxin/furan.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing work practices for dioxin/furan as 
proposed. The EPA's response to the legal arguments made against work 
practice standards is presented in ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses'' found in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291).
     Work practices for Hg and other metals: Several commenters 
responded to the EPA's request for comment on work practices for Hg and 
non-Hg HAP metals. Numerous commenters stated that the EPA should 
finalize work practices instead of numeric limits and provided support 
for their assertion that the numeric limits are technically and 
economically impracticable to enforce. Commenters also noted that the 
emissions reduced by these numeric standards are not justified by the 
high cost that would be incurred to meet the standards.
    Response: Emissions of Hg and non-Hg HAP metals were detected using 
standard EPA test methods; therefore, the Hg and non-Hg HAP metals data 
sets do not meet the criteria for setting work practice standards under 
CAA section 112(h). The EPA is finalizing numeric standards for Hg and 
non-Hg HAP metals under CAA section rather than work practices. The 
final numeric standards have been revised since the proposal to account 
for new data from the industry (including data on the Hg content of raw 
materials), removal of test data found not to meet the requirements of 
the applicable data, and changes in the EPA's approach to selecting the 
MACT floor pools (see section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional 
details).
     Health-based standard for acid gases: Several commenters 
asserted that the EPA may not legally set CAA section 112(d)(4) health-
based standards for acid gases for BSCP facilities. Other commenters 
supported the EPA's decision to propose health-based standards for acid 
gases but noted that the EPA's approach was overly conservative and 
requested that the EPA consider setting multiple limits based on site 
characteristics.
    Response: The EPA is finalizing the health-based standards for acid 
gases as proposed. The EPA's response to the legal arguments made 
against health-based standards is presented in section V.A of this 
preamble. The EPA is not changing the HBEL from proposal, as the 
proposed HBEL provides low potential for both chronic and acute health 
effects.
     Size subcategories for MACT floors: Several commenters 
requested that the EPA subcategorize by size for the non-Hg HAP metal/
PM MACT floor limits, as was proposed for Hg.
    Response: As part of recalculating the MACT floor limits based on 
the final data set, the EPA is finalizing separate limits for small and 
large kilns for non-Hg HAP metals/PM as well as Hg. The EPA is also 
finalizing limits in three different formats for both pollutants to 
provide additional flexibility for small tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns 
with a low metals content in the PM emissions.
     Sawdust dryers: Several commenters requested that the EPA 
finalize a subcategory of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust 
dryers. Commenters provided general descriptions of how the operation 
of these kilns is different than tunnel kilns and stated that there are 
only two operating that would be subject to the BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP.
    Response: Although one commenter noted that stack testing of a 
sawdust dryer is being considered, commenters did not provide test data 
to demonstrate that emissions from sawdust dryers are different than 
other tunnel kilns. Therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a subcategory 
of sawdust-fired kilns venting to sawdust dryers.
     Periods of startup and shutdown: One commenter stated that 
work practices for periods of startup and shutdown of BSCP tunnel kilns 
are not lawful under the CAA. Other commenters supported the proposal 
to provide work practices for periods of

[[Page 65518]]

startup and shutdown, but suggested improvements to the standards to 
make them feasible for all tunnel kilns.
    Response: The EPA evaluated the comments and is finalizing work 
practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown that reflect 
best practices for minimizing emissions during these periods (see 
section V.B.2 of this preamble for additional information).
     MACT floor pool: Several commenters supported the EPA's 
proposal to calculate MACT floor standards for PM based on the top 12 
percent of the kilns in the industry (i.e., the best-performing sources 
with a FF-based APCD). One commenter asserted that the EPA's proposal 
is unlawful and the EPA must consider other factors than the APCD type 
when setting MACT standards.
    Response: The EPA reviewed all the data used for the MACT floor for 
PM as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals and found that some of the test 
data did not meet the requirements of EPA Method 5. When these data 
were removed, the EPA could no longer confirm that the data available 
to the agency represented all the best-performing sources. Therefore, 
the final PM and non-Hg HAP metals are based on the top 12 percent of 
sources for which we had test data, regardless of APCD type (see 
section V.B.1 of this preamble for additional details).
4. SBA Comments
    The SBA's Office of Advocacy supported the EPA's proposals to set 
work practice standards and health-based emission standards in all 
instances allowed by statute and suggested other areas of improvement. 
The comments on areas of improvement and the EPA's responses are 
summarized below:
     Hg standards: The EPA should pursue subcategorization by 
input (raw material) type and delay promulgation of a Hg standard to 
gather more information if needed. Standards may need to be combined 
with a significantly longer averaging time to allow for continuous 
compliance.
    Response: The EPA maintains that a delay in promulgation of an Hg 
standard is not appropriate for two reasons. First, under CAA section 
112(e), the EPA was scheduled to complete standards for all source 
categories by 2000. The EPA's 2003 BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP was 
vacated, and that vacatur re-created the EPA's obligation to set 
standards for the BSCP source category. Sierra Club v. EPA, 850 
F.Supp.2d 300, 303-304 (D.D.C. 2012). Under the consent decree in that 
case, as amended in August 2014, the EPA was obligated to sign a notice 
of final rulemaking to set standards for the BSCP source category by 
September 24, 2015.
    Second, the EPA notes that following proposal, it received 
additional information on the Hg content of raw materials from 
facilities in the BSCP industry. This information did not provide the 
EPA with the information needed to establish subcategories based on the 
class or type of raw materials. However, the EPA has concluded that it 
has sufficient information to allow it to finalize Hg standards that 
account for the variability of Hg content in raw materials. Thus, the 
EPA's conclusion is that there is no basis to delay promulgation of the 
Hg standards in order to gather more information.
     Economic analysis: The economic impact of the proposed 
rule on small entities is significantly underestimated. Specifically, 
the EPA should not annualize costs at 7 percent over 20 years because 
that does not reflect the financing options available to small 
entities, the EPA underestimated the cost for a facility to become a 
synthetic area source, and the EPA has underestimated the cost to 
comply with the Hg standards given the limited information the agency 
has on the performance of Hg controls in this industry.
    Response: The EPA standard engineering cost practice is to 
annualize over the expected life of the control equipment at 7 percent. 
The EPA does not have the data available to model the way a firm pays 
for an APCD because each firm has a different set of potential options 
for financing including debt financing, equity financing, and financing 
through retained earnings. The EPA acknowledges that some firms may not 
be able to borrow the money and some may close. The EPA's closure 
analysis is quite uncertain, but we do not have the detailed firm-
specific information necessary to refine the analysis. The EPA agrees 
that the costs to become a synthetic area source at proposal were 
underestimated, and the final rule impacts include testing costs for 
all facilities, as potential synthetic area sources would have to 
demonstrate that their emissions qualify them to apply for synthetic 
area status. Finally, the EPA must use the best information available 
to the agency to estimate the impact of the standards on all entities. 
The final Hg standards incorporate variability in the Hg content of raw 
materials, which is expected to ease the burdens on some small 
entities.
5. Affected Small Entities
    Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies 
are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated 
compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to measure the 
magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the final 
standards, the EPA estimated that two to three small BSCP manufacturing 
facilities (two to four BSCP manufacturing facilities overall) are at 
significant risk of closure.
6. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    Respondents would be required to provide one-time and periodic 
notifications, including initial notification, notification of 
performance tests, and notification of compliance status. Respondents 
would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting 
compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they 
would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the 
EPA's ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation 
supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as 
well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources 
and APCD at the facility.
7. Significant Alternatives
    The EPA considered three major options for this final rule; see 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Brick and Structural Clay Products 
NESHAP,'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291), for more information 
about the alternatives. Finalizing the proposed changes without 
revision is expected to have similar cost and emission reduction 
impacts to the standards the EPA is finalizing, with a similar number 
of closures (one to two small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than 
two to three). However, for the various legal and technical reasons 
outlined in this preamble and ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing: Background Information for Final Rule--Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, the EPA 
determined that the PM/non-Hg HAP metals and Hg standards should not be 
finalized as proposed. The other alternative considered included the 
same standards for acid gases and Hg that are being finalized but only 
provided one set of limits PM/non-Hg HAP metals (i.e., did not provide 
separate sets of limits for small and large tunnel kilns). This 
alternative is expected to have significantly higher cost impacts than 
the standards the EPA is finalizing, along with a significantly higher 
number of closures (five to 10

[[Page 65519]]

small BSCP manufacturing facilities rather than two to three small BSCP 
manufacturing facilities). Therefore, the EPA determined that it is 
necessary to exercise its discretion to subcategorize by kiln size to 
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities.
    In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide 
to help small entities comply with this rule. The guide will be 
available on the World Wide Web approximately 1 year after promulgation 
of the rule, at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/brick/brickpg.html.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The action imposes requirements on owners and 
operators of BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities and not 
tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the 
memoranda ``Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission 
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing Source Category,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-
0132 and ``Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission 
Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source 
Category,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0213.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly 
affect productivity, competition, or prices in the energy sector.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to 
use the following four voluntary consensus standards as acceptable 
alternatives to the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule.
    The EPA has decided to use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and 
Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its manual methods of measuring the oxygen 
or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. This standard is 
acceptable as an alternative to Method 3A and 3B and is available from 
the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or 
by telephone at (800) 843-2763.
    The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), 
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' 
for its measurement of the concentration of gaseous HCl and HF and 
other gaseous chlorides and fluorides. This standard is acceptable as 
an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
    In addition, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 
2008), ``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound 
and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources 
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' for its determination of elemental, oxidized, 
particle-bound, and total Hg emissions. This standard is acceptable as 
an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).
    Finally, the EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 
2010), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) 
Spectroscopy,'' for its use of an extractive sampling system to direct 
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the 
identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. This standard 
is acceptable as an alternative to Method 320 with the following 
conditions: (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the 
Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and 
(2) in ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent 
recovery (%R) must be determined for each target analyte (Equation 
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R 
must be greater than or equal to 70 percent and less than or equal to 
130 percent. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target 
compound, the test data are not acceptable for that compound and the 
test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or 
analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value 
for each compound must be reported in the test report and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that 
compound by using the following equation: Reported Result = (Measured 
Concentration in the Stack x 100)/%R.
    The standards ASTM D6735-01, ASTM D6784-02, and ASTM D6348-03 are 
available from the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) at 
http://www.astm.org; by mail at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box 
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or by telephone at (610) 832-
9585.
    While the EPA identified ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for 
Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' 
as being potentially applicable as an alternative to Method 9 for 
measuring opacity from BSCP tunnel kilns, the agency decided not to use 
it. The use of this voluntary consensus standard would be impractical. 
The five provisions for the use of this standard appear to be based on 
the assumption that the optical camera will be used on a daily basis. 
However, this rulemaking does not include daily Method 9 tests. The 
rule requirements are such that a Method 9 observation would need to be 
made unexpectedly and only when the Method 22 test failed. It would be 
unreasonable to expect that a source would be making daily calibrations 
of the camera when its use would be so infrequent. Given that, it is 
unlikely that the camera could be made ready in the time specified for 
the Method 9

[[Page 65520]]

readings. Therefore, this standard is not usable based on the current 
requirements in this rulemaking.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed 
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, 
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of 
protection provided to human health or the environment. As explained in 
the December 2014 proposal (79 FR 75672), the EPA determined that this 
final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations, 
because it increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population. Additionally, the 
agency has conducted a proximity analysis for this rulemaking, which is 
located in the docket. (See ``EJ Screening Report for Brick and 
Structural Clay,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291-0102, and ``EJ 
Screening Report for Clay Ceramics,'' Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0290-0241.)

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: September 24, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR part 63 as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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 paragraph (g)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (h)(75);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(86) through (98) as paragraphs (h)(87) 
through (99), respectively;
0
d. Adding new paragraph (h)(86);
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (h)(88); and
0
f. Revising paragraph (m)(2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), 
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 
63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 
63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJ, table 4 to subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 
1 to subpart ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (75) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, (Approved October 1, 2010), IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 
to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, tables 1, 2, and 5 
to subpart UUUUU, and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
    (86) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for tables 4 and 5 to 
subpart JJJJJ and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
    (88) ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), Standard Test Method for 
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas 
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), 
(Approved April 1, 2008), IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.11646(a), 
63.11647(a) and (d), tables 1, 2, 5, 11, 12t, and 13 to subpart DDDDD, 
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, table 
4 to subpart JJJJJJ, table 5 to subpart UUUUU, and appendix A to 
subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), 
and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

0
3. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart JJJJJ to read as follows:

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8385 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8390 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8395 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8405 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 
meet?
63.8410 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and 
work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8420 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.8425 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8435 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8440 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8445 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating 
limits?
63.8450 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.8455 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards?

[[Page 65521]]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8465 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.8470 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8480 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8485 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8490 What records must I keep?
63.8495 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8505 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8510 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8515 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Compliance Dates
Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Notifications
Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ

Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

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. A plant site that manufactures refractory 
products, as defined in Sec.  63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in 
Sec.  63.8665, is not a BSCP manufacturing facility.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

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) of this section.
    (1) All tunnel kilns at a BSCP manufacturing facility are an 
affected source. For the remainder of this subpart, a tunnel kiln with 
a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 megagrams per hour (Mg/
hr) (10 tons per hour (tph)) of fired product will be called a large 
tunnel kiln, and a tunnel kiln with a design capacity less than 9.07 
Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product will be called a small tunnel kiln.
    (2) Each periodic kiln is an affected source.
    (c) Process units not subject to the requirements of this subpart 
are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 
previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (2) Raw material processing and handling.
    (3) Dryers.
    (4) Sources covered by subparts KKKKK and SSSSS of this part.
    (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the 
affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in 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) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance 
dates in Table 7 to this subpart.
    (b) You must meet the notification requirements in 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.

[[Page 65522]]

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 that you are approved for and in compliance with the 
alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and except during periods 
of start-up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the 
applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further efforts 
to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have 
been achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in 
compliance with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified 
for your affected source in 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 subject to the 
alternative standard established in this paragraph upon approval by the 
Administrator and provided you satisfy the conditions listed in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar 
days before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.8395. Your 
request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the 
control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance 
activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of 
the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be 
accomplished during kiln shutdowns, provide information stating whether 
the continued operation of the affected source will result in fewer 
emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is 
performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this 
section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation 
required by the Administrator.
    (2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4 
percent of the annual operating uptime for each kiln.
    (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be 
incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source's 
title V permit.
    (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln 
is operating and the control device is offline by complying with the 
applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (5) You must minimize the time period during which the kiln is 
operating and the control device is offline.
    (e) You must be in compliance with the work practice standards in 
this subpart at all times.
    (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 10 to this subpart.

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 delegated authority upon request.
    (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
    (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring 
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be 
monitored.
    (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the 
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
    (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations in 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)(1) and (2). The owner 
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life 
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance 
evaluation plan in Sec.  63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator 
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each 
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be 
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (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,

[[Page 65523]]

including the procedures in paragraphs (b)(11)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Procedures for determining the cause of the operating parameter 
deviation.
    (ii) Actions necessary for correcting the deviation and returning 
the operating parameters to the allowable limits.
    (iii) Procedures for recording the times that the deviation began 
and ended and corrective actions were initiated and completed.
    (12) Procedures for keeping records to document compliance.
    (13) If you operate an affected kiln and you plan to take the kiln 
control device out of service for routine maintenance, as specified in 
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 you based on representative performance 
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you 
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be 
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each 
performance test required in this section, as specified in 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.014

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.015

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

[[Page 65524]]

RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per 
cubic meter
RfCCl2 = reference concentration for Cl2, 0.15 
micrograms per cubic meter

    (ii) If you have multiple tunnel kilns at your facility, sum the 
HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel kilns at the facility using 
Equation 3:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.016

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.017

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.018

Where:

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

    (iii) If you have a single tunnel kiln at your facility and the 
total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, determine the maximum process rate for the 
tunnel kiln using Equation 6 that would ensure the total facility 
maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions remain at or below the HCl-
equivalent limit. The maximum process rate would become your operating 
limit for process rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.019

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.

[[Page 65525]]

    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) For each affected kiln that is subject to the emission limits 
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that 
is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process 
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must meet the requirements in 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 the routine control device maintenance alternative standard 
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 the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard 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 paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Locate the flow sensor in a position that provides a 
representative flowrate.
    (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the liquid flowrate.
    (3) At least semiannually, conduct a flow sensor calibration check.
    (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified 
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install 
a new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Check the pH meter's calibration at one point daily.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity.
    (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, 
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by 
reference, see 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 EPA-
454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' 
(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

[[Page 65526]]

decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless such 
adjustment follows a complete fabric filter inspection that 
demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good operating condition, as 
defined in section 5.2 of the ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference, see 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 paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a 
representative feed rate measurement.
    (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
    (g) For each limestone feed system on a dry limestone adsorber 
(DLA), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (4), and 
(5) of this section and must ensure on a monthly basis that the feed 
system replaces limestone at least as frequently as the schedule set 
during the performance test.
    (h) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 
percent of the temperature being measured.
    (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
    (i) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must 
meet the requirements in 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(c).

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. 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. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in 
this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.8485(c)(9).
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e)(1) VE testing. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with 
the operating limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions 
(VE) from tunnel kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DLA, dry 
lime injection fabric filter (DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filter 
(DLS/FF), or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln 
stack according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (v) 
of this section.
    (i) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to 
the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. You must 
conduct the Method 22 test while the affected source is operating under 
normal conditions. The duration of each Method 22 test must be at least 
15 minutes.
    (ii) If VE are observed during any daily test conducted using 
Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7, you must promptly conduct an 
opacity test, according to the procedures of Method 9 of 40 CFR part 
60, appendix A-4. If opacity greater than 10 percent is observed, you 
must initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M 
plan.
    (iii) You may decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing from 
daily to weekly for a kiln stack if one of the conditions in paragraph 
(e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met.
    (A) No VE are observed in 30 consecutive daily Method 22 tests for 
any kiln stack; or
    (B) No opacity greater than 10 percent is observed during any of 
the Method 9 tests for any kiln stack.
    (iv) If VE are observed during any weekly test and opacity greater 
than 10 percent is observed in the subsequent Method 9 test, you must 
promptly initiate and complete corrective actions according to your 
OM&M plan, resume testing of that kiln stack following Method 22 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-7, on a daily basis, as described in paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) of this section, and maintain that schedule until one of the 
conditions in paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(A) or (B) of this section is met, 
at which time you may again decrease the frequency of Method 22 testing 
to a weekly basis.
    (v) If greater than 10 percent opacity is observed during any test 
conducted using Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4, you must 
report these deviations by following the requirements in Sec.  63.8485.
    (2) Alternative to VE testing. In lieu of meeting the requirements 
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, you may conduct a PM test at 
least once every year following the initial performance test, according 
to the procedures of

[[Page 65527]]

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3, and the provisions of Sec.  
63.8445(e) and (f)(1).

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) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 8 
to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified.
    (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 5 to this 
subpart, your Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 8 
to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) The requirements in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(i).
    (2) The operating limit parameter values established for each 
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the 
procedure used to establish the values.
    (3) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak 
detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag 
leak detection systems in Sec.  63.8450(e).

Sec.  63.8485  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 9 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.8395 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. The first 
reporting period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. 
For example, if your compliance date is March 1, then the first 
semiannual reporting period would begin on March 1 and end on December 
31.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 
30 and December 31, respectively.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods 
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief 
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the 
report are true, accurate, and complete.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the 
control device was offline and the kiln controlled by the control 
device was operating, including the information specified in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and 
restarted.
    (ii) Identification of the kiln that was operating and the number 
of hours that the kiln operated while the control device was offline.
    (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance 
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance 
request developed as specified in Sec.  63.8420(d). If the control 
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 
maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The total amount of time that the kiln controlled by the 
control device operated during the current semiannual compliance period 
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
    (B) The amount of time that each kiln controlled by the control 
device operated while the control device was offline for maintenance 
covered under the routine control device maintenance alternative 
standard during the current semiannual compliance period and during the 
previous semiannual compliance period.
    (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of 
kiln operating uptime during which the control device was offline for 
routine maintenance using Equation 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.020

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of kiln uptime during which control device 
was offline for routine control device maintenance
DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous 
semiannual compliance period
DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance alternative standard for the current 
semiannual compliance period
KUp = Kiln uptime for the previous semiannual compliance 
period
KUc = Kiln uptime for the current semiannual compliance 
period

    (5) A report of the most recent burner tune-up conducted to comply 
with the dioxin/furan work practice standard in Table 3 to this 
subpart.
    (6) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limits or operating limits) that apply to you, the compliance 
report must contain a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (7) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-of-control during the reporting period.

[[Page 65528]]

    (8) The first compliance report must contain the startup push rate 
for each kiln, the minimum APCD inlet temperature for each APCD, and 
the temperature profile for each kiln without an APCD.
    (9) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report 
such events in the compliance report by including the information in 
paragraphs (c)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using 
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(9), 
and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (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) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device 
maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each 
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that were due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A brief description of the process units.
    (9) A brief description of the CMS.
    (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control 
equipment since the last reporting period.
    (e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 
compliance report according to Table 9 to this subpart along with, or 
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any 
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting 
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a 
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have 
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting 
authority.
    (f) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each 
performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, 
you must submit the results of the performance test following the 
procedure specified in either paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the time of the test, 
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language 
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 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 
request, if you request to use the alternative standard 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, record the information in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.8420(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit 
to its normal or usual manner of operation.

[[Page 65529]]

    (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a 
fired-product basis.
    (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 
procedures.
    (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
    (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with 
records documenting conformance.
    (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) 
through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your 
periodic kiln.
    (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each 
product produced in each periodic kiln. If all periodic kilns use the 
same time and temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each 
kiln. Reference numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets.
    (ii) For each periodic kiln, a log that details the type of product 
fired in each batch, the corresponding time and temperature protocol 
reference number, and an indication of whether the appropriate time and 
temperature cycle was fired.
    (iii) For each periodic kiln, a log of the actual tonnage of 
product fired in the periodic kiln and an indication of whether the 
tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific kiln.
    (8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 
compliance with the maintenance requirements of the periodic kiln work 
practice standards specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (9) Records of burner tune-ups used to comply with the dioxin/furan 
work practice standard for tunnel kilns.
    (10) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following 
information:
    (i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown 
period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to 
the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
    (ii) For periods of startup, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust 
temperature prior to the time the kiln exhaust reaches the minimum APCD 
inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln temperature 
profile is attained (for a kiln with no APCD).
    (iii) For periods of shutdown, the kiln push rate and kiln exhaust 
temperature after the time the kiln exhaust falls below the minimum 
APCD inlet temperature (for a kiln with an APCD) or the kiln 
temperature profile is no longer maintained (for a kiln with no APCD).
    (11) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and 
procedures required to be established or developed according to the 
applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart.

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).
    (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 10 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 (6) 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.
    (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under 
Sec.  63.8420(d).

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. 
A plant site that manufactures refractory products, as defined in 40 
CFR 63.9824, or clay ceramics, as defined in 40 CFR 63.8665, is not a 
BSCP manufacturing facility.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected 
source required to obtain such a permit.
    Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes 
continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or 
reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
    Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 
includes

[[Page 65530]]

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.
    Fired product means brick or structural clay products that have 
gone through the firing process via kilns.
    Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a 
tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an APCD), 
rather than to a sawdust dryer.
    Large tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 
reconstructed) with a design capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/
hr (10 tph) of fired product.
    Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that 
kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term 
integrity of the APCD.
    Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, 
emissions of PM that serve as a measure of total particulate emissions, 
as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or Method 29 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and as a surrogate for non-mercury metal 
HAP contained in the particulates including, but not limited to, 
antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 
manganese, nickel, and selenium.
    Periodic kiln means a batch firing kiln.
    Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road 
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that 
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, 
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Small tunnel kiln means a tunnel kiln (existing, new, or 
reconstructed) with a design capacity less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of 
fired product.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and 
starting the production process.
    Startup push rate means the kiln push rate required to bring the 
kiln to the proper operating temperature during startup.
    Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is used to fire BSCP. 
Some tunnel kilns have two process streams, including a process stream 
that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD, and a process 
stream in which the kiln exhaust is ducted to a sawdust dryer where it 
is used to dry sawdust before being emitted to the atmosphere.
    Tunnel kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of brick, in 
Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by 
the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the 
void space in the brick, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking 
pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, 
the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following 
modifications.
    Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include 
caustic additives or other chemicals, as the sorbent. Wet scrubbers may 
use any of various design mechanisms to increase the contact between 
exhaust gases and the sorbent.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

Tables to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63

    As stated in 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 following         Or you must comply with the
              For each . . .                      emission limits . . .                  following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel kilns at       HF, HCl, and Cl2 emissions must not  Not applicable.
 facility, including all process streams.   exceed 26 kg/hr (57 lb/hr) HCl
                                            equivalent, under the health-based
                                            standard, as determined using
                                            Equations 2 and 3.
2. Existing large tunnel kiln (design      a. PM emissions must not exceed      i. PM emissions must not exceed
 capacity >=10 tons per hour (tph) of       0.018 kg/Mg (0.036 lb/ton) of        6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029 gr/dscf) at
 fired product), including all process      fired product.                       17% O2; or
 streams.                                                                       ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
                                                                                 must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
                                                                                 (0.0057 lb/hr).
                                           b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.1  i. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                            E-05 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg)   7.7 micrograms per dry standard
                                            (4.1 E-05 pound per ton (lb/ton))    cubic meter ([micro]g/dscm) at
                                            of fired product.                    17% O2; or
                                                                                ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                                                                 2.5 E-04 kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/
                                                                                 hr).
3. Existing small tunnel kiln (design      a. PM emissions must not exceed      i. PM emissions must not exceed
 capacity <10 tph of fired product),        0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired    4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at
 including all process streams.             product.                             17% O2; or
                                                                                ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
                                                                                 must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr
                                                                                 (0.11 lb/hr).
                                           b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7  i. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                            E-04 kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ton) of      91 [mu]g/dscm at 17% O2; or
                                            fired product.
                                                                                ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                                                                 8.5 E-04 kg/hr (0.0019 lb/hr).

[[Page 65531]]

 
4. New or reconstructed large tunnel kiln  a. PM emissions must not exceed      i. PM emissions must not exceed
 (design capacity >=10 tph of fired         0.0089 kg/Mg (0.018 lb/ton) of       3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014 gr/dscf) at
 product), including all process streams.   fired product..                      17% O2; or
                                                                                ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
                                                                                 must not exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
                                                                                 (0.0057 lb/hr) of fired
                                                                                 product.
                                           b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.4  i. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                            E-05 kg/Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/ton) of      6.2 [micro]g/dscm at 17% O2.
                                            fired product.
                                                                                ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                                                                 1.6 E-04 kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/
                                                                                 hr).
5. New or reconstructed small tunnel kiln  a. PM emissions must not exceed      i. PM emissions must not exceed
 (design capacity <10 tph of fired          0.015 kg/Mg (0.030 lb/ton) of        4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021 gr/dscf) at
 product), including all process streams.   fired product.                       17% O2; or
                                                                                ii. Non-Hg HAP metals emissions
                                                                                 must not exceed 0.047 kg/hr
                                                                                 (0.11 lb/hr) of fired product.
                                           b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.7  i. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                            E-04 kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/ton) of      91 [micro]g/dscm at 17% O2.
                                            fired product.
                                                                                ii. Hg emissions must not exceed
                                                                                 8.5 E-04 kg/hr (0.0019 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 in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated; and
                                    c. Use the same grade of limestone
                                     from the same source as was used
                                     during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance
                                     test in which compliance was
                                     demonstrated; maintain records of
                                     the source and grade of limestone;
                                     and
                                    d. Maintain no VE from the DLA
                                     stack.
2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a      a. If you use a bag leak detection
 DIFF or DLS/FF.                     system, initiate corrective action
                                     within 1 hour of a bag leak
                                     detection system alarm and complete
                                     corrective actions in accordance
                                     with your OM&M plan; operate and
                                     maintain the fabric filter such
                                     that the alarm is not engaged for
                                     more than 5 percent of the total
                                     operating time in a 6-month block
                                     reporting period; or maintain no VE
                                     from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
                                    b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the
                                     feed hopper or silo and to the APCD
                                     at all times for continuous
                                     injection systems; maintain the
                                     feeder setting (on a per ton of
                                     fired product basis) at or above
                                     the level established during the HF/
                                     HCl/Cl2 performance test for
                                     continuous injection systems in
                                     which compliance was demonstrated.
3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a WS.  a. Maintain the average scrubber
                                     liquid pH for each 3-hour block
                                     period at or above the average
                                     scrubber liquid pH established
                                     during the HF/HCl/Cl2 performance
                                     test in which compliance was
                                     demonstrated; and
                                    b. Maintain the average scrubber
                                     liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
                                     block period at or above the
                                     highest average scrubber liquid
                                     flow rate established during the HF/
                                     HCl/Cl2 and PM/non-Hg HAP metals
                                     performance tests in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated.
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with an     Maintain the average carbon flow
 ACI system.                         rate for each 3-hour block period
                                     at or above the average carbon flow
                                     rate established during the Hg
                                     performance test in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated.
5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on       a. Maintain no VE from the stack.
 control.                           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:

[[Page 65532]]

      Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      According to the
       For each . . .            You must . . .           following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing, new or           a. Minimize HAP       i. Develop and use a
 reconstructed periodic kiln.  emissions.            designed firing
                                                     time and
                                                     temperature cycle
                                                     for each periodic
                                                     kiln. You must
                                                     either program the
                                                     time and
                                                     temperature cycle
                                                     into your kiln or
                                                     track each step on
                                                     a log sheet; and
                                                    ii. Label each
                                                     periodic kiln with
                                                     the maximum load
                                                     (in tons) of
                                                     product that can be
                                                     fired in the kiln
                                                     during a single
                                                     firing cycle; and
                                                    iii. For each firing
                                                     load, document the
                                                     total tonnage of
                                                     product placed in
                                                     the kiln to ensure
                                                     that it is not
                                                     greater than the
                                                     maximum load
                                                     identified in item
                                                     1b; and
                                                    iv. Develop and
                                                     follow maintenance
                                                     procedures for each
                                                     kiln that, at a
                                                     minimum, specify
                                                     the frequency of
                                                     inspection and
                                                     maintenance of
                                                     temperature
                                                     monitoring devices,
                                                     controls that
                                                     regulate air-to-
                                                     fuel ratios, and
                                                     controls that
                                                     regulate firing
                                                     cycles; and
                                                    v. Develop and
                                                     maintain records
                                                     for each periodic
                                                     kiln, as specified
                                                     in Sec.   63.8490.
2. Existing, new or           a. Minimize dioxin/   i. Maintain and
 reconstructed tunnel kiln.    furan emissions.      inspect the burners
                                                     and associated
                                                     combustion controls
                                                     (as applicable);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. Tune the
                                                     specific burner
                                                     type to optimize
                                                     combustion.
3. Existing, new or           a. Minimize HAP       i. Establish the
 reconstructed tunnel kiln     emissions.            startup push rate
 during periods of startup.                          for each kiln, the
                                                     minimum APCD inlet
                                                     temperature for
                                                     each APCD, and
                                                     temperature profile
                                                     for each kiln
                                                     without an APCD and
                                                     include them in
                                                     your first
                                                     compliance report,
                                                     as specified in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8485(c)(8); and
                                                    ii. After initial
                                                     charging of the
                                                     kiln with loaded
                                                     kiln cars, remain
                                                     at or below the
                                                     startup push rate
                                                     for the kiln until
                                                     the kiln exhaust
                                                     reaches the minimum
                                                     APCD inlet
                                                     temperature for a
                                                     kiln with an APCD
                                                     or until the kiln
                                                     temperature profile
                                                     is attained for a
                                                     kiln with no APCD;
                                                     and
                                                    iii. If your kiln
                                                     has an APCD, begin
                                                     venting the exhaust
                                                     from the kiln
                                                     through the APCD by
                                                     the time the kiln
                                                     exhaust temperature
                                                     reaches the minimum
                                                     APCD inlet
                                                     temperature.
4. Existing, new or           a. Minimize HAP       i. Do not push
 reconstructed tunnel kiln     emissions.            loaded kiln cars
 during periods of shutdown.                         into the kiln once
                                                     the kiln exhaust
                                                     temperature falls
                                                     below the minimum
                                                     APCD inlet
                                                     temperature if the
                                                     kiln is controlled
                                                     by an APCD or when
                                                     the kiln
                                                     temperature profile
                                                     is no longer
                                                     maintained for an
                                                     uncontrolled kiln;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. If your kiln has
                                                     an APCD, continue
                                                     to vent the exhaust
                                                     from the kiln
                                                     through the APCD
                                                     until the kiln
                                                     exhaust temperature
                                                     falls below the
                                                     minimum inlet
                                                     temperature for the
                                                     APCD.
5. Existing, new or           a. Minimize HAP       i. Develop and use a
 reconstructed tunnel kiln     emissions..           temperature profile
 during periods of routine                           for each kiln; and
 control device maintenance.                        ii. Develop and
                                                     follow maintenance
                                                     procedures for each
                                                     kiln that, at a
                                                     minimum, specify
                                                     the frequency of
                                                     inspection and
                                                     maintenance of
                                                     temperature
                                                     monitoring devices
                                                     and controls that
                                                     regulate air-to-
                                                     fuel ratios; and
                                                    iii. Develop and
                                                     maintain records
                                                     for each kiln, as
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.8490(a)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8445, you must conduct each performance test 
in the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 65533]]

                     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.
                                     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
                                                                                      (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  i. Method 26A of 40     You may use Method 26 of 40
                                      Cl2 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. 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
                                                              HAP metals: Method 29
                                                              of 40 CFR part 60,
                                                              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 65534]]

 
                                     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 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.
                                     b. 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 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:

  Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
                 Limitations and Work Practice Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
       For each . . .          For the following .  demonstrated initial
                                       . .          compliance  if . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel   a. HF, HCl, and Cl2   i. You measure HF,
 kilns at the facility,        emissions must not    HCl, and Cl2
 including all process         exceed 26 kg/hr (57   emissions for each
 streams.                      lb/hr) HCl            kiln using Method
                               equivalent.           26 or 26A of 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, appendix A-
                                                     8 or its
                                                     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

[[Page 65535]]

 
                                                    ii. You calculate
                                                     the HCl-equivalent
                                                     emissions for each
                                                     kiln using Equation
                                                     2 to this subpart;
                                                     and
                                                    iii. You sum the HCl-
                                                     equivalent values
                                                     for all kilns at
                                                     the facility using
                                                     Equation 3 to this
                                                     subpart; and
                                                    iv. The facility
                                                     total HCl-
                                                     equivalent does not
                                                     exceed 26 kg/hr (57
                                                     lb/hr).
2. Existing large tunnel      a. PM emissions must  i. The PM emissions
 kiln (design capacity >=10    not exceed 0.018 kg/  measured using
 tph of fired product),        Mg (0.036 lb/ton)     Method 5 of 40 CFR
 including all process         of fired product or   part 60, appendix A-
 streams.                      6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029   3 or Method 29 of
                               gr/dscf) at 17% O2;   40 CFR part 60,
                               or.                   appendix A-8, over
                                                     the period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, according to
                                                     the calculations in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8445(f)(1), do
                                                     not exceed 0.018 kg/
                                                     Mg (0.036 lb/ton)
                                                     of fired product or
                                                     6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which PM
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.018 kg/Mg
                                                     (0.036 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     6.6 mg/dscm (0.0029
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
                              b. Non-Hg HAP metals  i. The non-Hg HAP
                               emissions must not    metals emissions
                               exceed 0.0026 kg/hr   measured using
                               (0.0057 lb/hr).       Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, appendix A-
                                                     8, over the period
                                                     of the initial
                                                     performance test,
                                                     do not exceed
                                                     0.0026 kg/hr
                                                     (0.0057 lb/hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which non-Hg
                                                     HAP metals
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
                                                     (0.0057 lb/hr).
                              c. Hg emissions must  i. The Hg emissions
                               not exceed 2.1 E-05   measured using
                               kg/Mg (4.1 E-05 lb/   Method 29 of 40 CFR
                               ton) of fired         part 60, appendix A-
                               product or 7.7        8 or its
                               [micro]g/dscm at      alternative, ASTM
                               17% O2 or 2.5 E-04    D6784-02
                               kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/   (Reapproved 2008)
                               hr).                  (incorporated by
                                                     reference, see Sec.
                                                       63.14), over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, do not exceed
                                                     2.1 E-05 kg/Mg (4.1
                                                     E-05 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     7.7 [micro]g/dscm
                                                     at 17% O2 or 2.5 E-
                                                     04 kg/hr (5.5 E-04
                                                     lb/hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which Hg
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 2.1 E-05 kg/
                                                     Mg (4.1 E-05 lb/
                                                     ton) of fired
                                                     product or 7.7
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 2.5 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (5.5 E-04 lb/
                                                     hr).
3. Existing small tunnel      a. PM emissions must  i. The PM emissions
 kiln (design capacity <10     not exceed 0.19 kg/   measured using
 tph of fired product),        Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of   Method 5 of 40 CFR
 including all process         fired product or      part 60, appendix A-
 streams.                      4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021   3 or Method 29 of
                               gr/dscf) at 17% O2;   40 CFR part 60,
                               or.                   appendix A-8, over
                                                     the period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, according to
                                                     the calculations in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8445(f)(1), do
                                                     not exceed 0.19 kg/
                                                     Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which PM
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
                                                     (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     4.8 mg/dscm (0.0021
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2.

[[Page 65536]]

 
                              b. Non-Hg HAP metals  i. The non-Hg HAP
                               emissions must not    metals emissions
                               exceed 0.047 kg/hr    measured using
                               (0.11 lb/hr).         Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, appendix A-
                                                     8, over the period
                                                     of the initial
                                                     performance test,
                                                     do not exceed 0.047
                                                     kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which non-Hg
                                                     HAP metals
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.047 kg/hr
                                                     (0.11 lb/hr).
                              c. Hg emissions must  i. The Hg emissions
                               not exceed 1.7 E-04   measured using
                               kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/   Method 29 of 40 CFR
                               ton) of fired         part 60, appendix A-
                               product or 91         8 or its
                               [micro]g/dscm at      alternative, ASTM
                               17% O2 or 8.5 E-04    D6784-02
                               kg/hr (0.0019 lb/     (Reapproved 2008)
                               hr).                  (incorporated by
                                                     reference, see Sec.
                                                       63.14), over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, do not exceed
                                                     1.7 E-04 kg/Mg (3.3
                                                     E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or 91
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
                                                     hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which Hg
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 1.7 E-04 kg/
                                                     Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/
                                                     ton) of fired
                                                     product or 91
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
                                                     hr).
4. New or reconstructed       a. PM emissions must  i. The PM emissions
 large tunnel kiln (design     not exceed 0.0089     measured using
 capacity >=10 tph of fired    kg/Mg (0.018 lb/      Method 5 of 40 CFR
 product), including all       ton) of fired         part 60, appendix A-
 process streams.              product or 3.2 mg/    3, over the period
                               dscm (0.0014 gr/      of the initial
                               dscf) at 17% O2; or.  performance test,
                                                     according to the
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8445(f)(1), do
                                                     not exceed 0.0089
                                                     kg/Mg (0.018 lb/
                                                     ton) of fired
                                                     product or 3.2 mg/
                                                     dscm (0.0014 gr/
                                                     dscf) at 17% O2;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which PM
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.0089 kg/Mg
                                                     (0.018 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     3.2 mg/dscm (0.0014
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
                              b. Non-Hg HAP metals  i. The non-Hg HAP
                               emissions must not    metals emissions
                               exceed 0.0026 kg/hr   measured using
                               (0.0057 lb/hr).       Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, appendix A-
                                                     8, over the period
                                                     of the initial
                                                     performance test,
                                                     do not exceed
                                                     0.0026 kg/hr
                                                     (0.0057 lb/hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which non-Hg
                                                     HAP metals
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.0026 kg/hr
                                                     (0.0057 lb/hr).
                              c. Hg emissions must  i. The Hg emissions
                               not exceed 1.4 E-05   measured using
                               kg/Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/   Method 29 of 40 CFR
                               ton) of fired         part 60, appendix A-
                               product or 6.2        8 or its
                               [micro]g/dscm at      alternative, ASTM
                               17% O2 or 1.6 E-04    D6784-02
                               kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/   (Reapproved 2008)
                               hr).                  (incorporated by
                                                     reference, see Sec.
                                                       63.14), over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, do not exceed
                                                     1.4 E-05 kg/Mg (2.8
                                                     E-05 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     6.2 [micro]g/dscm
                                                     at 17% O2 or 1.6 E-
                                                     04 kg/hr (3.4 E-04
                                                     lb/hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which Hg
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 1.4 E-05 kg/
                                                     Mg (2.8 E-05 lb/
                                                     ton) of fired
                                                     product or 6.2
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 1.6 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (3.4 E-04 lb/
                                                     hr).

[[Page 65537]]

 
5. New or reconstructed       a. PM emissions must  i. The PM emissions
 small tunnel kiln (design     not exceed 0.015 kg/  measured using
 capacity <10 tph of fired     Mg (0.030 lb/ton)     Method 5 of 40 CFR
 product), including all       of fired product or   part 60, appendix A-
 process streams.              4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021   3, over the period
                               gr/dscf) at 17% O2;   of the initial
                               or.                   performance test,
                                                     according to the
                                                     calculations in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.8445(f)(1), do
                                                     not exceed 0.015 kg/
                                                     Mg (0.030 lb/ton)
                                                     of fired product or
                                                     4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2;
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which PM
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.015 kg/Mg
                                                     (0.030 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or
                                                     4.7 mg/dscm (0.0021
                                                     gr/dscf) at 17% O2.
                              b. Non-Hg HAP metals  i. The non-Hg HAP
                               emissions must not    metals emissions
                               exceed 0.047 kg/hr    measured using
                               (0.11 lb/hr).         Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                                     part 60, appendix A-
                                                     8, over the period
                                                     of the initial
                                                     performance test,
                                                     do not exceed 0.047
                                                     kg/hr (0.11 lb/hr);
                                                     and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which non-Hg
                                                     HAP metals
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 0.047 kg/hr
                                                     (0.11 lb/hr).
                              c. Hg emissions must  i. The Hg emissions
                               not exceed 1.7 E-04   measured using
                               kg/Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/   Method 29 of 40 CFR
                               ton) of fired         part 60, appendix A-
                               product or 91         8 or its
                               [micro]g/dscm at      alternative, ASTM
                               17% O2 or 8.5 E-04    D6784-02
                               kg/hr (0.0019 lb/     (Reapproved 2008)
                               hr).                  (incorporated by
                                                     reference, see Sec.
                                                       63.14), over the
                                                     period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test, do not exceed
                                                     1.7 E-04 kg/Mg (3.3
                                                     E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                     fired product or 91
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
                                                     hr); and
                                                    ii. You establish
                                                     and have a record
                                                     of the applicable
                                                     operating limits
                                                     listed in Table 2
                                                     to this subpart
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which Hg
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed 1.7 E-04 kg/
                                                     Mg (3.3 E-04 lb/
                                                     ton) of fired
                                                     product or 91
                                                     [micro]g/dscm at
                                                     17% O2 or 8.5 E-04
                                                     kg/hr (0.0019 lb/
                                                     hr).
6. Existing, new or           a. Minimize HAP       i. Develop a
 reconstructed periodic kiln.  emissions.            designed firing
                                                     time and
                                                     temperature cycle
                                                     for each periodic
                                                     kiln. You must
                                                     either program the
                                                     time and
                                                     temperature cycle
                                                     into your kiln or
                                                     track each step on
                                                     a log sheet; and
                                                    ii. Label each
                                                     periodic kiln with
                                                     the maximum load
                                                     (in tons) of
                                                     product that can be
                                                     fired in the kiln
                                                     during a single
                                                     firing cycle; and
                                                    iii. Develop
                                                     maintenance
                                                     procedures for each
                                                     kiln that, at a
                                                     minimum, specify
                                                     the frequency of
                                                     inspection and
                                                     maintenance of
                                                     temperature
                                                     monitoring devices,
                                                     controls that
                                                     regulate air-to-
                                                     fuel ratios, and
                                                     controls that
                                                     regulate firing
                                                     cycles.
7. Existing, new or           a. Minimize dioxin/   i. Conduct initial
 reconstructed tunnel kiln.    furan emissions.      inspection of the
                                                     burners 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:

[[Page 65538]]

Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ 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 kiln equipped with a  a. Each emission   i. Collecting the DLA
 DLA.                            limit in Table 1   pressure drop data
                                 to this subpart    according to Sec.
                                 and each           63.8450(a); reducing
                                 operating limit    the DLA pressure
                                 in Item 1 of       drop data to 3-hour
                                 Table 2 to this    block averages
                                 subpart for        according to Sec.
                                 tunnel kilns       63.8450(a);
                                 equipped with a    maintaining the
                                 DLA.               average pressure
                                                    drop across the DLA
                                                    for each 3-hour
                                                    block period at or
                                                    above the average
                                                    pressure drop
                                                    established during
                                                    the HF/HCl/Cl2
                                                    performance test in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated; or
                                                    continuously
                                                    monitoring the
                                                    bypass stack damper
                                                    position at least
                                                    once every 15
                                                    minutes during
                                                    normal kiln
                                                    operation, and
                                                    initiating
                                                    corrective action
                                                    within 1 hour after
                                                    the bypass damper is
                                                    opened allowing the
                                                    kiln exhaust gas to
                                                    bypass the DLA and
                                                    completing
                                                    corrective action in
                                                    accordance with your
                                                    OM&M plan; and
                                                   ii. Verifying that
                                                    the limestone hopper
                                                    and storage bin
                                                    (located at the top
                                                    of the DLA) contain
                                                    adequate limestone
                                                    by performing a
                                                    daily visual check,
                                                    which could include
                                                    one of the
                                                    following: (1)
                                                    Conducting a
                                                    physical check of
                                                    the hopper; (2)
                                                    creating a visual
                                                    access point, such
                                                    as a window, on the
                                                    side of the hopper;
                                                    (3) installing a
                                                    camera in the hopper
                                                    that provides
                                                    continuous feed to a
                                                    video monitor in the
                                                    control room; or (4)
                                                    confirming that load
                                                    level indicators in
                                                    the hopper are not
                                                    indicating the need
                                                    for additional
                                                    limestone; and
                                                   iii. Recording the
                                                    limestone feeder
                                                    setting daily (on a
                                                    per ton of fired
                                                    product basis) to
                                                    verify that the
                                                    feeder setting is
                                                    being maintained at
                                                    or above the level
                                                    established during
                                                    the HF/HCl/Cl2
                                                    performance test in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated; and
                                                   iv. Using the same
                                                    grade of limestone
                                                    from the same source
                                                    as was used during
                                                    the HF/HCl/Cl2
                                                    performance test;
                                                    maintaining records
                                                    of the source and
                                                    type of limestone;
                                                    and
                                                   v. Performing VE
                                                    observations of the
                                                    DLA stack at the
                                                    frequency specified
                                                    in Sec.   63.8470(e)
                                                    using Method 22 of
                                                    40 CFR part 60,
                                                    appendix A-7;
                                                    maintaining no VE
                                                    from the DLA stack.
2. Tunnel kiln equipped with a  a. Each emission   i. If you use a bag
 DIFF or DLS/FF.                 limit in Table 1   leak detection
                                 to this subpart    system, as
                                 and each           prescribed in
                                 operating limit    63.8450(e),
                                 in Item 2 of       initiating
                                 Table 2 to this    corrective action
                                 subpart for        within 1 hour of a
                                 tunnel kilns       bag leak detection
                                 equipped with      system alarm and
                                 DIFF or DLS/FF.    completing
                                                    corrective actions
                                                    in accordance with
                                                    your OM&M plan;
                                                    operating and
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    fabric filter such
                                                    that the alarm is
                                                    not engaged for more
                                                    than 5 percent of
                                                    the total operating
                                                    time in a 6-month
                                                    block reporting
                                                    period; in
                                                    calculating this
                                                    operating time
                                                    fraction, if
                                                    inspection of the
                                                    fabric filter
                                                    demonstrates that no
                                                    corrective action is
                                                    required, no alarm
                                                    time is counted; if
                                                    corrective action is
                                                    required, each alarm
                                                    is counted as a
                                                    minimum of 1 hour;
                                                    if you take longer
                                                    than 1 hour to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    action, the alarm
                                                    time is counted as
                                                    the actual amount of
                                                    time taken by you to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    action; or
                                                    performing VE
                                                    observations of the
                                                    DIFF or DLS/FF stack
                                                    at the frequency
                                                    specified in 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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
3. Tunnel kiln equipped with a  a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
 WS.                             limit in Table 1   scrubber liquid pH
                                 to this subpart    data according to
                                 and each           Sec.   63.8450(a);
                                 operating limit    reducing the
                                 in Item 3 of       scrubber liquid pH
                                 Table 2 to this    data to 3-hour block
                                 subpart for        averages according
                                 tunnel kilns       to Sec.
                                 equipped with WS.  63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid pH for each 3-
                                                    hour block period at
                                                    or above the average
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    established during
                                                    the HF/HCl/Cl2
                                                    performance test in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated; and
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data according
                                                    to 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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.

[[Page 65539]]

 
4. Tunnel kiln equipped with    Each emission      Collecting the carbon
 an ACI system.                  limit in Table 1   flow rate data
                                 to this subpart    according to Sec.
                                 and each           63.8450(a); reducing
                                 operating limit    the carbon flow rate
                                 in Item 4 of       data to 3-hour block
                                 Table 2 to this    averages according
                                 subpart for        to Sec.
                                 tunnel kilns       63.8450(a);
                                 equipped with      maintaining the
                                 ACI system.        average carbon flow
                                                    rate for each 3-hour
                                                    block period at or
                                                    above the average
                                                    carbon flow rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the Hg performance
                                                    test in which
                                                    compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
5. Tunnel kiln with no add-on   a. Each emission   i. Performing VE
 control.                        limit in Table 1   observations of the
                                 to this subpart    stack at the
                                 and each           frequency specified
                                 operating limit    in Sec.   63.8470(e)
                                 in Item 5 of       using Method 22 of
                                 Table 2 to this    40 CFR part 60,
                                 subpart for        appendix A-7; and
                                 tunnel kilns       maintaining no VE
                                 with no add-on     from the stack.
                                 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.
                                                    63.8450(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 kiln..............  a. Minimize HAP    i. Using a designed
                                 emissions.         firing time and
                                                    temperature cycle
                                                    for each periodic
                                                    kiln; and
                                                   ii. For each firing
                                                    load, documenting
                                                    the total tonnage of
                                                    product placed in
                                                    the kiln to ensure
                                                    that it is not
                                                    greater than the
                                                    maximum load
                                                    identified in Item
                                                    1.a.ii of Table 3 to
                                                    this subpart; and
                                                   iii. Following
                                                    maintenance
                                                    procedures for each
                                                    kiln that, at a
                                                    minimum, specify the
                                                    frequency of
                                                    inspection and
                                                    maintenance of
                                                    temperature
                                                    monitoring devices,
                                                    controls that
                                                    regulate air-to-fuel
                                                    ratios, and controls
                                                    that regulate firing
                                                    cycles; and
                                                   iv. Developing and
                                                    maintaining records
                                                    for each periodic
                                                    kiln, as specified
                                                    in Sec.   63.8490.
7. Tunnel kiln................  a. Minimize        i. Maintaining and
                                 dioxin/furan       inspecting the
                                 emissions.         burners and
                                                    associated
                                                    combustion controls
                                                    (as applicable) and
                                                    tuning the specific
                                                    burner type to
                                                    optimize combustion
                                                    no later than 36
                                                    calendar months
                                                    after the previous
                                                    tune-up; and
                                                   ii. Maintaining
                                                    records of burner
                                                    tune-ups used to
                                                    demonstrate
                                                    compliance with the
                                                    dioxin/furan work
                                                    practice standard;
                                                    and
                                                   iii. Submitting a
                                                    report of most
                                                    recent tune-up
                                                    conducted with
                                                    compliance report.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8395, you must meet each compliance date in 
the following table that applies to you:

          Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If you have a(n) . . .      Then you must . . .   No later than . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed       Comply with the       December 28, 2015.
 affected source and the       applicable emission
 initial startup of your       limitations and
 affected source is after      work practice
 December 18, 2014, but        standards in Tables
 before December 28, 2015.     1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
2. New or reconstructed       Comply with the       Initial startup of
 affected source and the       applicable emission   your affected
 initial startup of your       limitations and       source.
 affected source is after      work practice
 December 28, 2015.            standards in Tables
                               1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
3. Existing affected source.  Comply with the       December 26, 2018.
                               applicable emission
                               limitations and
                               work practice
                               standards in Tables
                               1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
4. Existing area source that  Be in compliance      Initial startup of
 increases its emissions or    with this subpart.    your affected
 its potential to emit such                          source as a major
 that it becomes a major                             source.
 source of HAP by adding a
 new affected source or by
 reconstructing.
5. New area source (i.e., an  Be in compliance      Initial startup of
 area source for which         with this subpart.    your affected
 construction or                                     source as a major
 reconstruction commenced                            source.
 after December 18, 2014)
 that increases its
 emissions or its potential
 to emit such that it
 becomes a major source of
 HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 65540]]

    As stated in Sec.  63.8480, you must submit each notification that 
applies to you according to the following table:

                   Table 8 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Deadlines for Submitting Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No later than . .
          If you . . .             You must . . .             .                   As specified in . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Start up your affected        Submit an Initial   June 22, 2016.....  Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
 source before December 28,       Notification.
 2015.
2. Start up your new or          Submit an Initial   120 calendar days   Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
 reconstructed affected source    Notification.       after you become
 on or after December 28, 2015.                       subject to this
                                                      subpart.
3. Are required to conduct a     Submit a            60 calendar days    Sec.   63.7(b)(1).
 performance test.                notification of     before the
                                  intent to conduct   performance test
                                  a performance       is scheduled to
                                  test.               begin.
4. Are required to conduct a     Submit a            60 calendar days    Sec.   63.9(h) and Sec.   63.10(d)(2).
 compliance demonstration that    Notification of     following the
 includes a performance test      Compliance          completion of the
 according to the requirements    Status, including   performance test,
 in Table 4 to this subpart.      the performance     by the close of
                                  test results.       business.
5. Are required to conduct a     Submit a            30 calendar days    Sec.   63.9(h).
 compliance demonstration         Notification of     following the
 required in Table 5 to this      Compliance Status.  completion of the
 subpart that does not include                        compliance
 a performance test (i.e.,                            demonstrations,
 compliance demonstrations for                        by the close of
 the work practice standards).                        business.
6. Request to use the routine    Submit your         120 calendar days   .......................................
 control device maintenance       request.            before the
 alternative standard according                       compliance date
 to Sec.   63.8420(d).                                specified in Sec.
                                                        63.8395.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8485, you must submit each report that 
applies to you according to the following table:

      Table 9 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must      You must submit
     You must submit . . .           contain . . .      the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report........  a. If there are no      Semiannually
                                 deviations from any     according to
                                 emission limitations    the
                                 (emission limits,       requirements in
                                 operating limits)       Sec.
                                 that apply to you, a    63.8485(b).
                                 statement that there
                                 were no deviations
                                 from the emission
                                 limitations during
                                 the reporting period.
                                 If there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS was out-of-
                                 control as specified
                                 in your OM&M plan, a
                                 statement that there
                                 were no periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control
                                 during the reporting
                                 period.
                                b. If you have a        Semiannually
                                 deviation from any      according to
                                 emission limitation     the
                                 (emission limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit)        Sec.
                                 during the reporting    63.8485(b).
                                 period, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8485(c)(9). If
                                 there were periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control,
                                 as specified in your
                                 OM&M plan, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8485(d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 10 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Citation                   Subject          Brief description         Applies to subpart JJJJJ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1....................  Applicability.....  Initial applicability   Yes.
                                                      determination;
                                                      applicability after
                                                      standard established;
                                                      permit requirements;
                                                      extensions,
                                                      notifications.
Sec.   63.2....................  Definitions.......  Definitions for part    Yes.
                                                      63 standards.
Sec.   63.3....................  Units and           Units and               Yes.
                                  Abbreviations.      abbreviations for
                                                      part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4....................  Prohibited          Compliance date;        Yes.
                                  Activities.         circumvention;
                                                      severability.
Sec.   63.5....................  Construction/       Applicability;          Yes.
                                  Reconstruction.     applications;
                                                      approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a).................  Applicability.....  General Provisions      Yes.
                                                      (GP) apply unless
                                                      compliance extension;
                                                      GP apply to area
                                                      sources that become
                                                      major.

[[Page 65541]]

 
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..........  Compliance Dates    Standards apply at      Yes.
                                  for New and         effective date; 3
                                  Reconstructed       years after effective
                                  sources.            date; upon startup;
                                                      10 years after
                                                      construction or
                                                      reconstruction
                                                      commences for section
                                                      112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..............  Notification......  Must notify if          Yes.
                                                      commenced
                                                      construction or
                                                      reconstruction after
                                                      proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..............  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that       Yes.
                                  for New and         become major must
                                  Reconstructed       comply with major
                                  Area Sources That   source standards
                                  Become Major.       immediately upon
                                                      becoming major,
                                                      regardless of whether
                                                      required to comply
                                                      when they were area
                                                      sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..........  Compliance Dates    Comply according to     Yes.
                                  for Existing        date in subpart,
                                  Sources.            which must be no
                                                      later than 3 years
                                                      after effective date;
                                                      for section 112(f)
                                                      standards, comply
                                                      within 90 calendar
                                                      days of effective
                                                      date unless
                                                      compliance extension.
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)..........  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that       Yes.
                                  for Existing Area   become major must
                                  Sources That        comply with major
                                  Become 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         No. See Sec.   63.8420(b) for
                                  Maintenance.        minimize emissions.     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           Yes.
                                  Maintenance.        maintenance
                                                      requirements
                                                      enforceable
                                                      independent of
                                                      emissions limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..............  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..............  Startup, Shutdown,  Requirement for         No.
                                  and Malfunction     startup, shutdown,
                                  Plan (SSMP).        and malfunction (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)-(3)..........  Methods for         Compliance based on     Yes.
                                  Determining         performance test,
                                  Compliance.         operation and
                                                      maintenance plans,
                                                      records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g).................  Alternative         Procedures for getting  Yes.
                                  Standard.           an alternative
                                                      standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).................  Opacity/VE          Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  Standards.          opacity and VE
                                                      standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).................  Compliance          Procedures and          Yes.
                                  Extension.          criteria for
                                                      Administrator to
                                                      grant compliance
                                                      extension.
Sec.   63.6(j).................  Presidential        President may exempt    Yes.
                                  Compliance          source category.
                                  Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..........  Performance Test    Dates for conducting    Yes.
                                  Dates.              initial performance
                                                      testing and other
                                                      compliance
                                                      demonstrations for
                                                      emission limits and
                                                      work practice
                                                      standards; must
                                                      conduct 180 calendar
                                                      days after first
                                                      subject to rule.
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)..............  Section 114         Administrator may       Yes.
                                  Authority.          require a performance
                                                      test under CAA
                                                      section 114 at any
                                                      time.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Delay in            Administrator of
                                  Performance         delay in performance
                                  Testing Due To      testing due to force
                                  Force Majeure.      majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Performance Test.   Administrator 60
                                                      calendar days before
                                                      the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Rescheduling.       Administrator 5
                                                      calendar days before
                                                      scheduled date of
                                                      rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c).................  Quality             Requirements; test      Yes.
                                  Assurance(QA)/      plan approval
                                  Test Plan.          procedures;
                                                      performance audit
                                                      requirements;
                                                      internal and external
                                                      QA procedures for
                                                      testing.
Sec.   63.7(d).................  Testing Facilities  Requirements for        Yes.
                                                      testing facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..............  Conditions for      Cannot conduct          No, Sec.   63.8445 specifies
                                  Conducting          performance tests       requirements.
                                  Performance Tests.  during SSM; not a
                                                      violation to exceed
                                                      standard during SSM.
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(3)..........  Conditions for      Must conduct according  Yes.
                                  Conducting          to subpart and EPA
                                  Performance Tests.  test methods unless
                                                      Administrator
                                                      approves alternative;
                                                      must have at least
                                                      three test runs of at
                                                      least 1 hour each;
                                                      compliance is based
                                                      on arithmetic mean of
                                                      three runs;
                                                      conditions when data
                                                      from an additional
                                                      test run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..............  Testing under       Administrator's         Yes.
                                  Section 114.        authority 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    Must include raw data   Yes.
                                  Data Analysis.      in performance test
                                                      report; must submit
                                                      performance test data
                                                      60 calendar 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.

[[Page 65542]]

 
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)..............  Applicability of    Subject to all          Yes.
                                  Monitoring          monitoring
                                  Requirements.       requirements in
                                                      subpart.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..............  Performance         Performance             Yes.
                                  Specifications.     Specifications in
                                                      appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                      part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..............  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..............  Monitoring with     Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  Flares.             flares in Sec.
                                                      63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..............  Monitoring........  Must conduct            Yes.
                                                      monitoring according
                                                      to standard unless
                                                      Administrator
                                                      approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..........  Multiple Effluents  Specific requirements   Yes.
                                  and Multiple        for installing and
                                  Monitoring          reporting on
                                  Systems.            monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..............  Monitoring System   Maintenance consistent  Yes.
                                  Operation and       with good air
                                  Maintenance.        pollution control
                                                      practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...........  Routine and         Reporting requirements  No.
                                  Predictable SSM.    for SSM when action
                                                      is described in SSMP.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..........  SSM not in SSMP...  Reporting requirements  Yes.
                                                      for 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
                                  Requirements.       operation and
                                                      maintenance
                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(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            No, not applicable.
                                  Monitoring System   procedures.
                                  (COMS) Minimum
                                  Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..............  CMS Requirements..  Zero and high level     Yes.
                                                      calibration check
                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)..........  CMS Requirements..  Out-of-control periods  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1) and (2)......  CMS Quality         Requirements for CMS    Yes.
                                  Control.            quality control.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)..............  CMS Quality         Written procedures for  No, Sec.   63.8425(b)(9) specifies
                                  Control.            CMS.                    requirements
Sec.   63.8(e).................  CMS Performance     Requirements for CMS    Yes.
                                  Evaluation.         performance
                                                      evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..........  Alternative         Procedures for          Yes.
                                  Monitoring Method.  Administrator to
                                                      approve alternative
                                                      monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..............  Alternative to      Procedures for          No, not applicable.
                                  Relative Accuracy   Administrator to
                                  Test.               approve 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             Requirements for
                                  Notifications.      initial notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c).................  Request for         Can request if cannot   Yes.
                                  Compliance          comply by date or if
                                  Extension.          installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d).................  Notification of     For sources that        Yes.
                                  Special             commence construction
                                  Compliance          between proposal and
                                  Requirements for    promulgation and want
                                  New Source.         to comply 3 years
                                                      after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e).................  Notification of     Notify Administrator    Yes.
                                  Performance Test.   60 calendar days
                                                      prior.
Sec.   63.9(f).................  Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator    No, not applicable.
                                  Opacity Test.       30 calendar days
                                                      prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..............  Additional          Notification of         Yes.
                                  Notifications       performance
                                  When Using CMS.     evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)-(3)..........  Additional          Notification of COMS    No, not applicable.
                                  Notifications       data use;
                                  When Using CMS.     notification that
                                                      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           Administrator to
                                  Deadlines.          approve change in
                                                      when notifications
                                                      must be submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j).................  Change in Previous  Must submit within 15   Yes.
                                  Information.        calendar days after
                                                      the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)................  Recordkeeping/      Applicability; general  Yes.
                                  Reporting.          information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).............  General             General requirements..  Yes.
                                  Recordkeeping
                                  Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..........  Records Related to  Recordkeeping of        No.
                                  SSM.                occurrence and
                                                      duration of startups
                                                      and shutdowns.

[[Page 65543]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).........  Records Related to  Recordkeeping of        No. See Sec.   63.8490(c)(2) for
                                  SSM.                failures to meet a      recordkeeping of (1) date, time
                                                      standard.               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  Maintenance records...
                                  SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).....  Records Related to  Actions taken to        No.
                                  SSM.                minimize emissions
                                                      during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii)     CMS Records.......  Records when CMS is     Yes.
 and (xiv).                                           malfunctioning,
                                                      inoperative or out-of-
                                                      control.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).......  Records...........  Records when using
                                                      alternative to
                                                      relative accuracy
                                                      test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3).............  Records...........  Applicability           Yes.
                                                      Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(15)........  Records...........  Additional records for  No, Sec.  Sec.   63.8425 and
                                                      CMS.                    63.8490 specify requirements
Sec.   63.10(d)(1) and (2).....  General Reporting   Requirements for        Yes.
                                  Requirements.       reporting;
                                                      performance test
                                                      results reporting.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).............  Reporting Opacity   Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  or VE               reporting opacity and
                                  Observations.       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            No. See Sec.   63.8485(c)(9) for
                                                      submission..            malfunction reporting
                                                                              requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(3).........  Additional CMS      Requirements for CMS    No, Sec.  Sec.   63.8425 and
                                  Reports.            reporting.              63.8485 specify requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).............  Reporting COMS      Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  data.               reporting COMS data
                                                      with performance test
                                                      data.
Sec.   63.10(f)................  Waiver for          Procedures for          Yes.
                                  Recordkeeping/      Administrator to
                                  Reporting.          waive.
Sec.   63.11...................  Flares............  Requirement for flares  No, not applicable.
Sec.   63.12...................  Delegation........  State authority to
                                                      enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13...................  Addresses.........  Addresses for reports,  Yes.
                                                      notifications,
                                                      requests.
Sec.   63.14...................  Incorporation by    Materials incorporated  Yes.
                                  Reference.          by reference.
Sec.   63.15...................  Availability of     Information             Yes.
                                  Information.        availability;
                                                      confidential
                                                      information.
Sec.   63.16...................  Performance Track   Requirements for        Yes.
                                  Provisions.         Performance Track
                                                      member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
4. Part 63 is amended by revising subpart KKKKK to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.8535 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.8540 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.8545 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.8555 What emission limitations and work practice standards must I 
meet?
63.8560 What are my options for meeting the emission limitations and 
work practice standards?

General Compliance Requirements

63.8570 What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.8575 What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.8585 By what date must I conduct performance tests?
63.8590 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.8595 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating 
limits?
63.8600 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.8605 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.8615 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.8620 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations and work practice standards?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.8630 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.8635 What reports must I submit and when?
63.8640 What records must I keep?
63.8645 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.8655 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.8660 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.8665 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits

[[Page 65544]]

Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Work Practice Standards
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards
Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Compliance Dates
Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Notifications
Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart KKKKK

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

What This Subpart Covers

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. A plant site that manufactures refractory 
products, as defined in Sec.  63.9824, or brick and structural clay 
products (BSCP), as defined in Sec.  63.8515, is not a clay ceramics 
manufacturing facility.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any combination of 
HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per year.

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 (9) of this section.
    (1) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for 
refiring.
    (2) Tunnel, roller or shuttle kilns that are used exclusively for 
setting glazes on previously fired products.
    (3) Glaze spray operations that are used exclusively with those 
kilns listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (4) Process units listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section that are permitted to, but do not, process first-fire ware, 
until such time as they begin to process first-fire ware.
    (5) Glaze spray operations that on average use wet glazes 
containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP (dry weight basis) 
per spray booth over an entire calendar year.
    (6) Raw material processing and handling.
    (7) Wall tile press dryers.
    (8) Sanitaryware ware dryers.
    (9) Sources covered by subparts JJJJJ and SSSSS of this part.
    (d) A source is a new affected source if construction of the 
affected source began after December 18, 2014, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (e) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in 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) You must comply with this subpart no later than the compliance 
dates in Table 8 to this subpart.
    (b) You must meet the notification requirements in 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 that you are approved for and in compliance with the 
alternative standard for routine control device maintenance as 
specified in paragraph (d) of this section, and except during periods 
of start-up and shutdown, at which time you must comply with the 
applicable work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including

[[Page 65545]]

associated air pollution control equipment and monitoring equipment, in 
a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty to minimize 
emissions does not require you to make any further efforts to reduce 
emissions if levels required by the applicable standard have been 
achieved. Determination of whether a source is operating in compliance 
with operation and maintenance requirements will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source. During the period between the compliance date specified 
for your affected source in 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 limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart and must perform 
routine maintenance on the control device for that affected source, you 
may bypass the source control device and continue operating the 
affected source subject to the alternative standard established in this 
paragraph upon approval by the Administrator and provided you satisfy 
the conditions listed in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You must request to use the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard from the Administrator no later than 120 calendar 
days before the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.8545. Your 
request must justify the need for the routine maintenance on the 
control device and the time required to accomplish the maintenance 
activities, describe the maintenance activities and the frequency of 
the maintenance activities, explain why the maintenance cannot be 
accomplished during source shutdowns, provide information stating 
whether the continued operation of the affected source will result in 
fewer emissions than shutting the source down while the maintenance is 
performed, describe how you plan to comply with paragraph (b) of this 
section during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation 
required by the Administrator.
    (2) The routine control device maintenance must not exceed 4 
percent of the annual operating uptime for each affected source.
    (3) The request for the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard, if approved by the Administrator, must be 
incorporated by reference in and attached to the affected source's 
title V permit.
    (4) You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the 
affected source is operating and the control device is offline by 
complying with the applicable standard in Table 3 to this subpart.
    (5) You must minimize the time period during which the affected 
source is operating and the control device is offline.
    (e) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the 
work practice standard specified in Table 3 to this subpart, you must 
be in compliance with that work practice standard at all times, except 
during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural 
gas is not available.
    (f) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 9 to this subpart.

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 delegated authority upon request.
    (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of this section.
    (1) Each process and APCD to be monitored, the type of monitoring 
device that will be used, and the operating parameters that will be 
monitored.
    (2) A monitoring schedule that specifies the frequency that the 
parameter values will be determined and recorded.
    (3) The limits for each parameter that represent continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations in 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)(1) and (2). The owner 
or operator shall keep these written procedures on record for the life 
of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the provisions of this part, to be made available for 
inspection, upon request, by the Administrator. If the performance 
evaluation plan in Sec.  63.8(d)(2) is revised, the owner or operator 
shall keep previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan on record to be made available for inspection, upon 
request, by the Administrator, for a period of 5 years after each 
revision to the plan. The program of corrective action should be 
included in the plan required under Sec.  63.8(d)(2).
    (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.

[[Page 65546]]

    (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 
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. Stacks to be tested at sanitaryware manufacturing 
facilities shall be limited to products of combustion (POC) stacks and 
those cooling stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.5 percent.
    (d) Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as 
the Administrator specifies to you based on representative performance 
of the affected source for the period being tested. Representative 
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. You may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of malfunction. You must record the 
process information that is necessary to document operating conditions 
during the test and include in such record an explanation to support 
that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, you 
shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be 
necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests.
    (e) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each 
performance test required in this section, as specified in 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.021

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant 
per megagram (ton) of throughput
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (PM or Hg) during each 
performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = production rate during each performance test run, megagrams 
(tons) of throughput per hour.

    (2) To determine compliance with the PM emission limits for ceramic 
tile glaze lines with glaze spraying and sanitaryware glaze spray 
booths in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass 
emissions per unit of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for 
each test run using Equation 2:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.022

Where:

MG = mass per unit of glaze application, kilograms (pounds) of PM 
per megagram (ton) of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis)
ER = mass emission rate of PM during each performance test run, 
kilograms (pounds) per hour
G = glaze application rate during each performance test run, 
megagrams (tons) of first-fire glaze sprayed per hour (dry weight 
basis).

    (3) To determine compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits 
for tunnel and roller kilns, ceramic tile spray dryers, and floor tile 
press dryers in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate the sum of 
the 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) toxic 
equivalents (TEQs) for each test run using Equation 3:

[[Page 65547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.023

Where:

TEQ = sum of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD TEQs, nanograms per kilogram of 
throughput processed.
Mi = mass of dioxin or furan congener i during 
performance test run, nanograms
TEFi = 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalency factor (TEF) for 
congener i, as provided in Table 5 to this subpart
n = number of congeners included in TEQ
Tr = time of performance test run, hours
P = production rate during performance test run, kilograms of 
throughput processed per hour.

    (4) To determine compliance with the health-based standard for acid 
gas HAP for clay ceramics manufacturing facilities in Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must:
    (i) Calculate the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF and HCl for each 
tunnel or roller kiln at your facility using Equation 4:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.024

Where:

Ei = HCl-equivalent emissions for kiln i, kilograms 
(pounds) per hour
EHCl = emissions of HCl, kilograms (pounds) per hour
EHF = emissions of HF, kilograms (pounds) per hour
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms 
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per 
cubic meter

    (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, 
sum the HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or roller kilns at the 
facility using Equation 5:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.025

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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.026

Where:

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

    (ii) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility, 
sum the maximum potential HCl-equivalent values for all tunnel or 
roller kilns at the facility using Equation 7:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.027

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

[[Page 65548]]

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] TR26OC15.028

Where:

Pmax i = maximum process rate for kiln i, megagrams 
(tons) per hour
HCl-eq = HCl-equivalent limit in Table 1 to this subpart, 62 
kilograms (140 pounds) per hour
MPiHCl = mass of HCl per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HCl per megagram (ton) of throughput
MPiHF = mass of HF per unit of production for kiln i, 
kilograms (pounds) of HF per megagram (ton) of throughput
RfCHCl = reference concentration for HCl, 20 micrograms 
per cubic meter
RfCHF = reference concentration for HF, 14 micrograms per 
cubic meter

    (iv) If you have multiple tunnel or roller kilns at your facility 
and the total facility maximum potential HCl-equivalent emissions 
(Emax total) are greater than the HCl-equivalent limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart, you must determine the combination of maximum 
process rates that would ensure that total facility maximum potential 
HCl-equivalent remains at or below the HCl-equivalent limit. The 
maximum process rates would become your operating limits for process 
rate and must be included in your OM&M plan.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) For each affected source that is subject to the emission limits 
specified in Table 1 to this subpart and is equipped with an APCD that 
is not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process 
changes as a means of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must meet the requirements in 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 the routine control device maintenance alternative standard 
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 the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard 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 paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range.
    (4) Check the pressure tap daily to ensure that it is not plugged.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified 
maximum operating pressure range, conduct calibration checks or install 
a new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Check the pH meter's calibration at one point daily.

[[Page 65549]]

    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity.
    (e) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, 
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the EPA-454/R-98-015, 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by 
reference, see 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,'' (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,'' (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 paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a 
representative feed rate measurement.
    (2) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
    (g) For each temperature measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Locate the measurement device in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) Use a measurement device with a minimum sensitivity of 1 
percent of the temperature being measured.
    (3) At least semiannually, conduct a calibration check.
    (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must 
meet the requirements in 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. 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. 
These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this 
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.8635(c)(8).
    (d) [Reserved]
    (e) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
limits in Table 2 to this subpart for visible emissions (VE) from 
tunnel or roller kilns that are uncontrolled or equipped with DIFF, 
DLS/FF, or other dry control device by monitoring VE at each kiln stack 
according to the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) Perform daily VE observations of each kiln stack according to 
the procedures of Method 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7. You must 
conduct

[[Page 65550]]

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) You must submit all of the notifications specified in Table 9 
to this subpart that apply to you, by the dates specified.
    (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test or other 
initial compliance demonstration as specified in Tables 4 and 6 to this 
subpart, your Notification of Compliance Status as specified in Table 9 
to this subpart must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) The requirements in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(i).
    (2) The operating limit parameter values established for each 
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the 
procedure used to establish the values.
    (3) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, if a bag leak 
detection system is used, analysis and supporting documentation 
demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag 
leak detection systems in Sec.  63.8600(e).
    (d) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the 
work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, 
and you intend to use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to 
fire the affected kiln, your notification of alternative fuel use must 
include the information specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Identification of the affected kiln.
    (3) Reason you are unable to use natural gas or equivalent fuel, 
including the date when the natural gas curtailment was declared or the 
natural gas supply interruption began.
    (4) Type of alternative fuel that you intend to use.
    (5) Dates when the alternative fuel use is expected to begin and 
end.

Sec.  63.8635  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 10 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 10 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.8545 and ending on either June 30 or December 31. This reporting 
period must be at least 6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, 
if your compliance date is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting 
period would begin on March 1 and end on December 31.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 
30 and December 31, respectively.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods 
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief 
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the 
report are true, accurate, and complete.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) A description of control device maintenance performed while the 
control device was offline and the affected source controlled by the 
control device was operating, including the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date and time when the control device was shut down and 
restarted.
    (ii) Identification of the affected source that was operating and 
the number of hours that the affected source operated while the control 
device was offline.
    (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance 
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance 
request developed as specified in Sec.  63.8570(d). If the control 
device maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 
maintenance request, then you must report the information in paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The total amount of time that the affected source controlled by 
the control device operated during the current semiannual compliance 
period and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
    (B) The amount of time that each affected source controlled by the 
control device operated while the control device was offline for 
maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard during the current semiannual compliance period 
and during the previous semiannual compliance period.
    (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 
(c)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, compute the annual percent of 
affected source operating uptime during which the control device was 
offline for routine maintenance using Equation 9.

[[Page 65551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26OC15.029

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of affected source uptime during which 
control device was offline for routine control device maintenance
DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance alternative standard for the previous 
semiannual compliance period
DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance alternative standard for the current 
semiannual compliance period
SUp = Affected source uptime for the previous semiannual 
compliance period
SUc = Affected source uptime for the current semiannual 
compliance period

    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limits or operating limits) or work practice standards that 
apply to you, the compliance report must contain a statement that there 
were no deviations from the emission limitations or work practice 
standards during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) The first compliance report must contain the startup production 
rate for each ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic 
tile spray dryer, and sanitaryware tunnel kiln; the minimum APCD inlet 
temperature for each APCD; and the temperature profile for each ceramic 
tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic tile spray dryer, and 
sanitaryware tunnel kiln without an APCD.
    (8) For each deviation that occurs at an affected source, report 
such events in the compliance report by including the information in 
paragraphs (c)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment for which the 
deviation occurred.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using 
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (c)(8), 
and paragraphs (d)(1) through (11) of this section. This includes 
periods of startup, shutdown, and routine control device maintenance.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the pertinent information in your OM&M plan.
    (4) Whether each deviation occurred during routine control device 
maintenance covered in your approved routine control device maintenance 
alternative standard or during another period, and the cause of each 
deviation (including unknown cause, if applicable).
    (5) A description of any corrective action taken to return the 
affected unit to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A brief description of the process units.
    (9) A brief description of the CMS.
    (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control 
equipment since the last reporting period.
    (e) If you have obtained a title V operating permit according to 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, you must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a 
compliance report according to Table 8 to this subpart along with, or 
as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance 
report includes all required information concerning deviations from any 
emission limitation (including any operating limit), then submitting 
the compliance report will satisfy any obligation to report the same 
deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submitting a 
compliance report will not otherwise affect any obligation you may have 
to report deviations from permit requirements to the permitting 
authority.
    (f) If you own or operate an affected kiln that is subject to the 
work practice standard specified in Item 1 of Table 3 to this subpart, 
and you use a fuel other than natural gas or equivalent to fire the 
affected kiln, you must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 
10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The 
report must include the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Identification of the affected kiln.
    (3) Reason for using the alternative fuel.
    (4) Type of alternative fuel used to fire the affected kiln.
    (5) Dates that the use of the alternative fuel started and ended.
    (6) Amount of alternative fuel used.
    (g) Within 60 calendar days after the date of completing each 
performance test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, 
you must submit the results of the performance test following the 
procedure specified in either paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this 
section.
    (1) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html) at the time of the test, 
you must submit the results of the performance test to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/).) Performance test data must be submitted in a file 
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file format consistent with the extensible markup language 
(XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site. If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash 
drive, or other

[[Page 65552]]

commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media 
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph.
    (2) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 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 
request, if you request to use the alternative standard 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, record the information in paragraphs 
(c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) The date, time, and duration of the deviation.
    (ii) A list of the affected sources or equipment.
    (iii) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
    (iv) Actions taken to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.8570(b) and any corrective actions taken to return the affected unit 
to its normal or usual manner of operation.
    (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a ton 
throughput processed basis.
    (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 
procedures.
    (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
    (6) Current copies of your OM&M plan, including any revisions, with 
records documenting conformance.
    (7) Logs of the information required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) 
through (iii) of this section to document proper operation of your 
sanitaryware shuttle kiln.
    (i) Records of the firing time and temperature cycle for each 
sanitaryware shuttle kiln. If all shuttle kilns use the same time and 
temperature cycles, one copy may be maintained for each kiln. Reference 
numbers must be assigned to use in log sheets.
    (ii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log that details the 
time and temperature protocol reference number, and an indication of 
whether the appropriate time and temperature cycle was fired.
    (iii) For each sanitaryware shuttle kiln, a log of the actual 
tonnage of greenware fired in the shuttle kiln and an indication of 
whether the tonnage was below the maximum tonnage for that specific 
kiln.
    (8) Logs of the maintenance procedures used to demonstrate 
compliance with the maintenance requirements of the sanitaryware 
shuttle kiln work practice standards specified in Table 3 to this 
subpart.
    (9) For periods of startup and shutdown, records of the following 
information:
    (i) The date, time, and duration of each startup and/or shutdown 
period, recording the periods when the affected source was subject to 
the standard applicable to startup and shutdown.
    (ii) For periods of startup, the production rate and exhaust 
temperature prior to the time the exhaust reaches the minimum APCD 
inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with 
an APCD) or the temperature profile is attained (for ceramic tile 
roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and 
sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD).
    (iii) For periods of shutdown, the production rate and exhaust 
temperature after the time the exhaust falls below the minimum APCD 
inlet temperature (for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press 
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with 
an APCD) or the temperature profile is no longer maintained (for 
ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray 
dryers, and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with no APCD).
    (10) All site-specific parameters, temperature profiles, and 
procedures required to be established or developed according to the 
applicable work practice standards in Table 3 to this subpart.

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

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 (6) 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-

[[Page 65553]]

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 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.
    (6) Approval of a routine control device maintenance request under 
Sec.  63.8570(d).

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. A plant site that manufactures refractory 
products, as defined in Sec.  63.9824, or brick and structural clay 
products (BSCP), as defined in Sec.  63.8515, is not a clay ceramics 
manufacturing facility.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard; or
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart for any affected 
source required to obtain such a permit.
    Dioxin/furan means, for purposes of this subpart, the sum of the 
2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents calculated using Equation 3 of this 
subpart.
    Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an APCD that includes 
continuous injection of hydrated lime or other sorbent into a duct or 
reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter.
    Dry lime scrubber/fabric filter (DLS/FF) means an APCD that 
includes continuous injection of humidified hydrated lime or other 
sorbent into a reaction chamber followed by a fabric filter. These 
systems typically include recirculation of some of the sorbent.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit or operating limit.
    Fabric filter means an APCD used to capture PM by filtering a gas 
stream through filter media; also known as a baghouse.
    Fired product means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have 
gone through the firing process via kilns.
    Glaze means a coating of colored, opaque, or transparent material 
applied to ceramic products before firing.
    Glaze line means a production line for glazing ceramic products, 
which includes glaze spraying (typically comprised of one or more glaze 
spray booths) and other types of glazing operations (e.g., dipping, 
flooding, centrifugal disc glazing, curtain coating).
    Glaze spray booth means a type of equipment used for spraying glaze 
on ceramic products.
    Glaze spray operation means any type of glaze application that uses 
glaze spraying, including glaze lines and glaze spray booths.
    Greenware means clay ceramic or sanitaryware products that have not 
gone through the firing process via kilns.
    Initial startup means the time at which the kiln first reaches a 
level of production that is equal to 75 percent of the kiln design 
capacity or 12 months after the affected source begins firing clay 
ceramics, whichever is earlier.
    Kiln design capacity means the maximum amount of clay ceramics, in 
Mg (tons), that a kiln is designed to produce in one year divided by 
the number of hours in a year (8,760 hours), taking into account the 
void space in the product, the push rate for the kiln, and the stacking 
pattern, if applicable. If a kiln is modified to increase the capacity, 
the design capacity is considered to be the capacity following 
modifications.
    Minimum APCD inlet temperature means the minimum temperature that 
kiln exhaust can be vented to the APCD that ensures the long-term 
integrity of the APCD.
    Particulate matter (PM) means, for purposes of this subpart, 
emissions of filterable PM that serve as a measure of total particulate 
emissions, as measured by Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) or 
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-8), and as a surrogate for non-
mercury metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but not 
limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
lead, manganese, nickel, and selenium.
    Period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption means a 
period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an affected 
facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the facility. An 
increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not constitute a 
period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.
    Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road 
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that 
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, 
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Roller kiln means a continuous kiln similar to a tunnel kiln except 
that the unfired ceramic product travels through the kiln in a single 
layer on rollers. In the clay ceramics source category, roller kilns 
are used at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.
    Shuttle kiln means a batch firing kiln that is designed with a 
removable superstructure that is tilted or raised using hydraulic 
struts to allow entrance and egress. In the clay ceramics source 
category, shuttle kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
    Spray dryer means a drying chamber used to form a free-flowing 
powder from a slurry of ceramic mix and water, to improve handling and 
compaction. In the clay ceramics source category, spray dryers are used 
at ceramic tile manufacturing plants.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source and 
starting the production process.
    Startup production rate means the kiln, press dryer or spray dryer 
production rate required to bring the process unit to the proper 
operating temperature during startup.
    Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln that is not a roller kiln 
that is used to fire clay ceramics. In the clay ceramics source 
category, tunnel kilns are used at sanitaryware manufacturing plants.
    Wet scrubber (WS) means an APCD that uses water, which may include 
caustic additives or other chemicals, as

[[Page 65554]]

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.
2. Existing floor tile roller kiln  a. PM emissions must not exceed
                                     0.063 kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg)
                                     (0.13 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of
                                     fired product.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.3
                                     E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 2.8 nanograms per kilogram
                                     (ng/kg) of fired product.
3. Existing wall tile roller kiln.  a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19
                                     kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired
                                     product.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1
                                     E-04 kg/Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.
4. Existing first-fire              a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.17
 sanitaryware tunnel kiln.           kg/Mg (0.34 lb/ton) of greenware
                                     fired.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.3
                                     E-04 kg/Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     greenware fired.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 3.3 ng/kg of greenware
                                     fired.
5. Existing tile glaze line with    a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.93
 glaze spraying.                     kg/Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of first-fire
                                     glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0
                                     E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     first-fire glaze sprayed (dry
                                     weight basis).
6. Existing sanitaryware manual     PM emissions must not exceed 18 kg/
 glaze application.                  Mg (35 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
                                     sprayed (dry weight basis).
7. Existing sanitaryware spray      PM emissions must not exceed 6.2 kg/
 machine glaze application.          Mg (13 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
                                     sprayed (dry weight basis).
8. Existing sanitaryware robot      PM emissions must not exceed 4.5 kg/
 glaze application.                  Mg (8.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
                                     sprayed (dry weight basis).
9. Existing floor tile spray dryer  Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 19 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
10. Existing wall tile spray dryer  Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
11. Existing floor tile press       Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 dryer.                              exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
12. New or reconstructed floor      a. PM emissions must not exceed
 tile roller kiln.                   0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired
                                     product.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 2.0
                                     E-05 kg/Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 1.3 ng/kg of fired product.
13. New or reconstructed wall tile  a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.19
 roller kiln.                        kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of fired
                                     product.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 1.1
                                     E-04 kg/Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     fired product.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.22 ng/kg of fired product.
14. New or reconstructed first-     a. PM emissions must not exceed
 fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln.      0.048 kg/Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of
                                     greenware fired.
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 6.1
                                     E-05 kg/Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     greenware fired.
                                    c. Dioxin/furan emissions must not
                                     exceed 0.99 ng/kg of greenware
                                     fired.
15. New or reconstructed tile       a. PM emissions must not exceed 0.31
 glaze line with glaze spraying.     kg/Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of first-fire
                                     glaze sprayed (dry weight basis).
                                    b. Hg emissions must not exceed 8.0
                                     E-05 kg/Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton) of
                                     first-fire glaze sprayed (dry
                                     weight basis).
16. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 2.0 kg/
 sanitaryware manual glaze           Mg (3.9 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
 application.                        sprayed (dry weight basis).
17. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 1.6 kg/
 sanitaryware spray machine glaze    Mg (3.2 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
 application.                        sprayed (dry weight basis).
18. New or reconstructed            PM emissions must not exceed 1.2 kg/
 sanitaryware robot glaze            Mg (2.3 lb/ton) of first-fire glaze
 application.                        sprayed (dry weight basis).
19. New or reconstructed floor      Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 tile spray dryer.                   exceed 0.071 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
20. New or reconstructed wall tile  Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 spray dryer.                        exceed 0.058 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
21. New or reconstructed floor      Dioxin/furan emissions must not
 tile press dryer.                   exceed 0.024 ng/kg of throughput
                                     processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8555, you must meet each operating limit in 
the following table that applies to you:

[[Page 65555]]

          Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped   a. If you use a bag leak detection
 with a DIFF or DLS/FF.              system, initiate corrective action
                                     within 1 hour of a bag leak
                                     detection system alarm and complete
                                     corrective actions in accordance
                                     with your OM&M plan; operate and
                                     maintain the fabric filter such
                                     that the alarm is not engaged for
                                     more than 5 percent of the total
                                     operating time in a 6-month block
                                     reporting period; or maintain no VE
                                     from the DIFF or DLS/FF stack; and
                                    b. Maintain free-flowing lime in the
                                     feed hopper or silo and to the APCD
                                     at all times for continuous
                                     injection systems; maintain the
                                     feeder setting (on a per ton of
                                     throughput basis) at or above the
                                     level established during the
                                     performance test for continuous
                                     injection systems in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated.
2. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped   a. Maintain the average scrubber
 with a WS.                          liquid pH for each 3-hour block
                                     period at or above the average
                                     scrubber liquid pH established
                                     during the HF/HCl performance test
                                     in which compliance was
                                     demonstrated; and
                                    b. Maintain the average scrubber
                                     liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
                                     block period at or above the
                                     highest average scrubber liquid
                                     flow rate established during the HF/
                                     HCl and PM performance tests in
                                     which compliance was demonstrated.
3. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped   Maintain the average carbon flow
 with an ACI system.                 rate for each 3-hour block period
                                     at or above the highest average
                                     carbon flow rate established during
                                     the Hg and dioxin/furan performance
                                     tests in which compliance was
                                     demonstrated.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln intending  If you intend to comply with the
 to comply with dioxin/furan         dioxin/furan emission limit without
 emission limit without an ACI       an ACI system, maintain the stack
 system.                             temperature at or below the highest
                                     4-hour average stack temperature
                                     established during the dioxin/furan
                                     performance test in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln with no    a. Maintain no VE from the stack;
 add-on control.                     and
                                    b. Maintain the kiln process rate at
                                     or below the kiln process rate
                                     determined according to Sec.
                                     63.8595(g)(1) if your total
                                     facility maximum potential HCl-
                                     equivalent emissions are greater
                                     than the HCl-equivalent limit in
                                     Table 1 to this subpart; and
                                    c. Maintain the stack temperature at
                                     or below the highest 4-hour average
                                     stack temperature established
                                     during the dioxin/furan performance
                                     test in which compliance was
                                     demonstrated.
6. Glaze spray operation equipped   If you use a bag leak detection
 with a FF.                          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   a. Maintain the average scrubber
 with a WS.                          pressure drop for each 3-hour block
                                     period at or above the average
                                     pressure drop established during
                                     the PM performance test in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated; and
                                    b. Maintain the average scrubber
                                     liquid flow rate for each 3-hour
                                     block period at or above the
                                     average scrubber liquid flow rate
                                     established during the PM
                                     performance test in which
                                     compliance was demonstrated.
8. Glaze spray operation equipped   Conduct daily inspections to verify
 with a water curtain.               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   Conduct an annual visual inspection
 with baffles.                       of the baffles to confirm the
                                     baffles are in place.
10. Spray dryer...................  Maintain the average operating
                                     temperature for each 3-hour block
                                     period at or above the average
                                     temperature established during the
                                     dioxin/furan performance test in
                                     which compliance was demonstrated.
11. Floor tile press dryer........  Maintain the average operating
                                     temperature for each 3-hour block
                                     period at or below the average
                                     temperature established during the
                                     dioxin/furan performance test in
                                     which compliance was demonstrated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in 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
        For each . . .            You must . . .       the following
                                                     requirements . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing, new, or            a. Minimize HAP    i. Use natural gas,
 reconstructed sanitaryware      emissions.         or equivalent, as
 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
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln. You must
                                                    either program the
                                                    time and temperature
                                                    cycle into your kiln
                                                    or track each step
                                                    on a log sheet; and
                                                   iii. Label each
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln with the
                                                    maximum load (in
                                                    tons) of greenware
                                                    that can be fired in
                                                    the kiln during a
                                                    single firing cycle;
                                                    and
                                                   iv. For each firing
                                                    load, document the
                                                    total tonnage of
                                                    greenware placed in
                                                    the kiln to ensure
                                                    that it is not
                                                    greater than the
                                                    maximum load
                                                    identified in item
                                                    1.a.iii; and
                                                   v. Develop and follow
                                                    maintenance
                                                    procedures for each
                                                    kiln that, at a
                                                    minimum, specify the
                                                    frequency of
                                                    inspection and
                                                    maintenance of
                                                    temperature
                                                    monitoring devices,
                                                    controls that
                                                    regulate air-to-fuel
                                                    ratios, and controls
                                                    that regulate firing
                                                    cycles; and

[[Page 65556]]

 
                                                   vi. Develop and
                                                    maintain records for
                                                    each sanitaryware
                                                    shuttle kiln, as
                                                    specified in Sec.
                                                    63.8640.
2. Existing, new or             a. Minimize HAP    i. Establish the
 reconstructed ceramic tile      emissions.         startup production
 roller kiln, sanitaryware                          rate for each kiln
 tunnel kiln, floor tile press                      or dryer; the
 dryer or ceramic tile spray                        minimum APCD inlet
 dryer during periods of                            temperature for each
 startup.                                           APCD; and
                                                    temperature profile
                                                    for each kiln or
                                                    dryer with no APCD
                                                    and include them in
                                                    your first
                                                    compliance report,
                                                    as specified in Sec.
                                                      63.8635(c)(7); and
                                                   ii. After initial
                                                    loading of the kiln
                                                    or dryer, remain at
                                                    or below the startup
                                                    production rate for
                                                    the kiln or dryer
                                                    until the kiln or
                                                    dryer exhaust
                                                    reaches the minimum
                                                    APCD inlet
                                                    temperature for a
                                                    kiln or dryer with
                                                    an APCD or until the
                                                    kiln or dryer
                                                    temperature profile
                                                    is attained for a
                                                    kiln or dryer with
                                                    no APCD; and
                                                   iii. If your kiln or
                                                    dryer has an APCD,
                                                    begin venting the
                                                    exhaust from the
                                                    kiln or dryer
                                                    through the APCD by
                                                    the time the kiln or
                                                    dryer exhaust
                                                    temperature reaches
                                                    the minimum APCD
                                                    inlet temperature.
3. Existing, new or             a. Minimize HAP    i. Do not load the
 reconstructed ceramic tile      emissions.         kiln or dryer once
 roller kiln, sanitaryware                          the kiln or dryer
 tunnel kiln, floor tile press                      exhaust temperature
 dryer or ceramic tile spray                        falls below the
 dryer during periods of                            minimum APCD inlet
 shutdown.                                          temperature if the
                                                    kiln or dryer is
                                                    controlled by an
                                                    APCD or when the
                                                    kiln or dryer
                                                    temperature profile
                                                    is no longer
                                                    maintained for an
                                                    uncontrolled kiln or
                                                    dryer; and
                                                   ii. If your kiln or
                                                    dryer has an APCD,
                                                    continue to vent the
                                                    exhaust from the
                                                    kiln or dryer
                                                    through the APCD
                                                    until the kiln or
                                                    dryer exhaust
                                                    temperature falls
                                                    below the minimum
                                                    inlet temperature
                                                    for the APCD.
4. Existing, new or             a. Minimize HAP    i. Develop and use a
 reconstructed ceramic tile      emissions.         temperature profile
 roller kiln, sanitaryware                          for each kiln or
 tunnel kiln, floor tile press                      dryer; and
 dryer or ceramic tile spray                       ii. Develop and
 dryer during periods of                            follow maintenance
 routine control device                             procedures for each
 maintenance.                                       kiln that, at a
                                                    minimum, specify the
                                                    frequency of
                                                    inspection and
                                                    maintenance of
                                                    temperature
                                                    monitoring devices
                                                    and controls that
                                                    regulate air-to-fuel
                                                    ratios; and
                                                   iii. Develop and
                                                    maintain records for
                                                    each kiln or dryer,
                                                    as specified in Sec.
                                                      63.8640(a)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
                                                                                      (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.

[[Page 65557]]

 
                                                             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     ...........................
                                                              CFR part 60, 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).
                                     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.
                                     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
                                                                                      (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
                                                                                      (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).

[[Page 65558]]

 
                                     b. Establish the stack  Data from the           You must continuously
                                      temperature operating   temperature             measure the stack
                                      limit.                  measurement device      temperature and determine
                                                              during the dioxin/      and record the temperature
                                                              furan performance       values for the three test
                                                              test.                   runs. The highest 4-hour
                                                                                      average stack temperature
                                                                                      of the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your maximum
                                                                                      site-specific stack
                                                                                      temperature operating
                                                                                      limit.
5. Tunnel or roller kiln that is     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       ton of throughput
                                      test run in order to    tests (e.g., the        processed basis, of the
                                      determine compliance    number of ceramic       affected kiln for each of
                                      with PM and/or Hg       pieces and weight per   the three 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
                                                                                      throughput basis, for the
                                                                                      three test runs. If the
                                                                                      feed rate setting varies
                                                                                      during the three test
                                                                                      runs, determine and record
                                                                                      the average feed rate from
                                                                                      the three test runs. The
                                                                                      average of the three test
                                                                                      runs establishes your
                                                                                      minimum site-specific feed
                                                                                      rate operating limit.
7. Tunnel or roller kiln equipped    a. Establish the        Data from the pH        You must continuously
 with a WS.                           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.
                                     b. 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 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.
9. Tunnel or roller kiln intending   Establish the stack     Data from the           You must continuously
 to comply with dioxin/furan          temperature operating   temperature             measure the stack
 emission limit without an ACI        limit.                  measurement device      temperature and determine
 system.                                                      during the dioxin/      and record the temperature
                                                              furan performance       values for the three test
                                                              test.                   runs. The highest 4-hour
                                                                                      average stack temperature
                                                                                      of the three test runs
                                                                                      establishes your maximum
                                                                                      site-specific stack
                                                                                      temperature operating
                                                                                      limit.
10. Glaze spray operation equipped   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.

[[Page 65559]]

 
                                     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.
11. 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.
12. 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 TEQ using
      For each dioxin/furan congener . . .        the following  TEF . .
                                                            .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin............                   1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin..........                   1
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.........                   0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.........                   0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.........                   0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin......                   0.01
Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.....................                   0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran................                   0.1
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran..............                   0.03
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran..............                   0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.............                   0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.............                   0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorodibenzofuran.............                   0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorodibenzofuran.............                   0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorodibenzofuran..........                   0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorodibenzofuran..........                   0.01
Octachlorodibenzofuran.........................                   0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in 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
        For each . . .          For the following  initial compliance if
                                      . . .                . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Collection of all tunnel or  a. HF, HCl, and    i. You measure HF and
 roller kilns at the facility.   Cl2 emissions      HCl emissions for
                                 must not exceed    each kiln using
                                 62 kg/hr (140 lb/  Method 26 or 26A of
                                 hr) HCl            40 CFR part 60,
                                 equivalent.        appendix A-8 or its
                                                    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

[[Page 65560]]

 
                                                   ii. You calculate the
                                                    HCl-equivalent
                                                    emissions for HF for
                                                    each kiln using
                                                    Equation 4 to this
                                                    subpart; and
                                                   iii. You sum the HCl-
                                                    equivalent values
                                                    for all kilns at the
                                                    facility using
                                                    Equation 5 to this
                                                    subpart; and
                                                   iv. The facility
                                                    total HCl-equivalent
                                                    does not exceed 62
                                                    kg/hr (140 lb/hr).
2. Existing floor tile roller   a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 kiln.                           must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.063 kg/Mg        Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 (0.13 lb/ton) of   part 60, appendix A-
                                 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 0.063 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.13 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    applicable operating
                                                    limits listed in
                                                    Table 2 to this
                                                    subpart over the 3-
                                                    hour performance
                                                    test during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.063 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.13 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 6.3 E-05 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (1.3 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of fired      8 or its
                                 product.           alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (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    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 2.8     using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of fired     40 CFR part 60,
                                 product.           appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    2.8 ng/kg of fired
                                                    product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 2.8 ng/kg
                                                    of fired product.
3. Existing wall tile roller    a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 kiln.                           must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of fired   part 60, appendix A-
                                 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 0.19 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 1.1 E-04 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (2.1 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of fired      8 or its
                                 product.           alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                                    2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    1.1 E-04 kg/Mg (2.1
                                                    E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1.1 E-04 kg/
                                                    Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of fired product.
                                c. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.22    using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of fired     40 CFR part 60,
                                 product.           appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.22 ng/kg of fired
                                                    product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.22 ng/
                                                    kg of fired product.
4. Existing first-fire          a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 sanitaryware tunnel kiln.       must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.17 kg/Mg (0.34   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of         part 60, appendix A-
                                 greenware fired.   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 (0.34 lb/ton) of
                                                    greenware fired; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.17 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.34 lb/ton) of
                                                    greenware fired.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 1.3 E-04 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (2.6 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of            8 or its
                                 greenware fired.   alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (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
                                                    greenware fired; and

[[Page 65561]]

 
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1.3 E-04 kg/
                                                    Mg (2.6 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of greenware fired.
                                c. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 3.3     using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 greenware fired.   appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    3.3 ng/kg of
                                                    greenware fired; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 3.3 ng/kg
                                                    of greenware fired.
5. Existing tile glaze line     a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 with glaze spraying.            must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.93 kg/Mg (1.9    Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 0.93 kg/
                                                    Mg (1.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.93 kg/Mg
                                                    (1.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 8.0 E-05 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (1.6 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of first-     8 or its
                                 fire glaze         alternative, ASTM
                                 sprayed (dry       D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                 weight basis).     2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    8.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6
                                                    E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 8.0 E-05 kg/
                                                    Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
6. Existing sanitaryware        a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 manual glaze application.       must not exceed    measured using
                                 18 kg/Mg (35 lb/   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 ton) of first-     part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 18 kg/Mg
                                                    (35 lb/ton) of first-
                                                    fire glaze sprayed
                                                    (dry weight basis);
                                                    and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 18 kg/Mg (35
                                                    lb/ton) of first-
                                                    fire glaze sprayed
                                                    (dry weight basis).
7. Existing sanitaryware spray  a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 machine glaze application.      must not exceed    measured using
                                 6.2 kg/Mg (13 lb/  Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 ton) of first-     part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 6.2 kg/Mg
                                                    (13 lb/ton) of first-
                                                    fire glaze sprayed
                                                    (dry weight basis);
                                                    and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 6.2 kg/Mg (13
                                                    lb/ton) of first-
                                                    fire glaze sprayed
                                                    (dry weight basis).
8. Existing sanitaryware robot  a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 glaze application.              must not exceed    measured using
                                 4.5 kg/Mg (8.9     Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 4.5 kg/Mg
                                                    (8.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 4.5 kg/Mg
                                                    (8.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
9. Existing floor tile spray    a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 dryer.                          emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 19 ng/  using Method 23 of
                                 kg of throughput   40 CFR part 60,
                                 processed.         appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    19 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 19 ng/kg
                                                    of throughput
                                                    processed.
10. Existing wall tile spray    a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 dryer.                          emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.058   using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 throughput         appendix A-7, over
                                 processed.         the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.058 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.058 ng/
                                                    kg of throughput
                                                    processed.
11. Existing floor tile press   a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 dryer.                          emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.024   using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 throughput         appendix A-7, over
                                 processed.         the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.024 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and

[[Page 65562]]

 
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.024 ng/
                                                    kg of throughput
                                                    processed.
12. New or reconstructed floor  a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 tile roller kiln.               must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.019 kg/Mg        Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 (0.037 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A-
                                 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 0.019 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.037 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 2.0 E-05 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (3.9 E-05 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of fired      8 or its
                                 product.           alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                                    2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    2.0 E-05 kg/Mg (3.9
                                                    E-05 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 2.0 E-05 kg/
                                                    Mg (3.9 E-05 lb/ton)
                                                    of fired product.
                                c. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 1.3     using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of fired     40 CFR part 60,
                                 product.           appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    1.3 ng/kg of fired
                                                    product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 1.3 ng/kg
                                                    of fired product.
13. New or reconstructed wall   a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 tile roller kiln.               must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of fired   part 60, appendix A-
                                 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 0.19 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.19 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.37 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 1.1 E-04 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (2.1 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of fired      8 or its
                                 product.           alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                                    2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    1.1 E-04 kg/Mg (2.1
                                                    E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                    fired product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1.1 E-04 kg/
                                                    Mg (2.1 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of fired product.
                                c. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.22    using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of fired     40 CFR part 60,
                                 product.           appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.22 ng/kg of fired
                                                    product; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.22 ng/
                                                    kg of fired product.
14. New or reconstructed first- a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 fire sanitaryware tunnel kiln.  must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.048 kg/Mg        Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 (0.095 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A-
                                 of greenware       3 or Method 29 of 40
                                 fired.             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 0.048 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.095 lb/ton) of
                                                    greenware fired; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.048 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.095 lb/ton) of
                                                    greenware fired.
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 6.1 E-05 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (1.3 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of            8 or its
                                 greenware fired.   alternative, ASTM
                                                    D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                                    2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    6.1 E-05 kg/Mg (1.3
                                                    E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                    greenware fired; and

[[Page 65563]]

 
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 6.1 E-05 kg/
                                                    Mg (1.3 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of greenware fired.
                                c. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
                                 emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.99    using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 greenware fired.   appendix A-7, over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.99 ng/kg of
                                                    greenware fired; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.99 ng/
                                                    kg of greenware
                                                    fired.
15. New or reconstructed tile   a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 glaze line with glaze           must not exceed    measured using
 spraying.                       0.31 kg/Mg (0.61   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 0.31 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.61 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.31 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.61 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
                                b. Hg emissions    i. The Hg emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 8.0 E-05 kg/Mg     Method 29 of 40 CFR
                                 (1.6 E-04 lb/      part 60, appendix A-
                                 ton) of first-     8 or its
                                 fire glaze         alternative, ASTM
                                 sprayed (dry       D6784-02 (Reapproved
                                 weight basis).     2008) (incorporated
                                                    by reference, see
                                                    Sec.   63.14), over
                                                    the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    8.0 E-05 kg/Mg (1.6
                                                    E-04 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which Hg
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 8.0 E-05 kg/
                                                    Mg (1.6 E-04 lb/ton)
                                                    of first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
16. New or reconstructed        a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 sanitaryware manual glaze       must not exceed    measured using
 application.                    2.0 kg/Mg (3.9     Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 2.0 kg/Mg
                                                    (3.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 2.0 kg/Mg
                                                    (3.9 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
17. New or reconstructed        a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 sanitaryware spray machine      must not exceed    measured using
 glaze application.              1.6 kg/Mg (3.2     Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 1.6 kg/Mg
                                                    (3.2 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1.6 kg/Mg
                                                    (3.2 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
18. New or reconstructed        a. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
 sanitaryware robot glaze        must not exceed    measured using
 application.                    1.2 kg/Mg (2.3     Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of first-  part 60, appendix A-
                                 fire glaze         3, over the period
                                 sprayed (dry       of the initial
                                 weight basis).     performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                      63.8595(f)(2), do
                                                    not exceed 1.2 kg/Mg
                                                    (2.3 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis); and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which PM
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1.2 kg/Mg
                                                    (2.3 lb/ton) of
                                                    first-fire glaze
                                                    sprayed (dry weight
                                                    basis).
19. New or reconstructed floor  a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 tile spray dryer.               emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.071   using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 throughput         appendix A-7, over
                                 processed.         the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.071 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.071 ng/
                                                    kg of throughput
                                                    processed.
20. New or reconstructed wall   a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 tile spray dryer.               emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.058   using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 throughput         appendix A-7, over
                                 processed.         the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.058 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.058 ng/
                                                    kg of throughput
                                                    processed.
21. New or reconstructed floor  a. Dioxin/furan    i. The dioxin/furan
 tile press dryer.               emissions must     emissions measured
                                 not exceed 0.024   using Method 23 of
                                 ng/kg of           40 CFR part 60,
                                 throughput         appendix A-7, over
                                 processed.         the period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test, do not exceed
                                                    0.024 ng/kg of
                                                    throughput
                                                    processed; and

[[Page 65564]]

 
                                                   ii. You establish and
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating limits
                                                    listed in Table 2 to
                                                    this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test
                                                    during which dioxin/
                                                    furan emissions did
                                                    not exceed 0.024 ng/
                                                    kg of throughput
                                                    processed.
22. Existing, new, or           a. Minimize HAP    i. Use natural gas,
 reconstructed sanitaryware      emissions.         or equivalent, as
 shuttle kiln.                                      the kiln fuel; and
                                                   ii. Develop a
                                                    designed firing time
                                                    and temperature
                                                    cycle for the
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln. You must
                                                    either program the
                                                    time and temperature
                                                    cycle into your kiln
                                                    or track each step
                                                    on a log sheet; and
                                                   iii. Label each
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln with the
                                                    maximum load (in
                                                    tons) of greenware
                                                    that can be fired in
                                                    the kiln during a
                                                    single firing cycle;
                                                    and
                                                   iv. Develop
                                                    maintenance
                                                    procedures for each
                                                    kiln that, at a
                                                    minimum, specify the
                                                    frequency of
                                                    inspection and
                                                    maintenance of
                                                    temperature
                                                    monitoring devices,
                                                    controls that
                                                    regulate air-to-fuel
                                                    ratios, and controls
                                                    that regulate firing
                                                    cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in 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, as
                                 and each           prescribed in
                                 operating limit    63.8450(e),
                                 in Item 1 of       initiating
                                 Table 2 to this    corrective action
                                 subpart for        within 1 hour of a
                                 kilns equipped     bag leak detection
                                 with DIFF or DLS/  system alarm and
                                 FF.                completing
                                                    corrective actions
                                                    in accordance with
                                                    your OM&M plan;
                                                    operating and
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    fabric filter such
                                                    that the alarm is
                                                    not engaged for more
                                                    than 5 percent of
                                                    the total operating
                                                    time in a 6-month
                                                    block reporting
                                                    period; in
                                                    calculating this
                                                    operating time
                                                    fraction, if
                                                    inspection of the
                                                    fabric filter
                                                    demonstrates that no
                                                    corrective action is
                                                    required, no alarm
                                                    time is counted; if
                                                    corrective action is
                                                    required, each alarm
                                                    is counted as a
                                                    minimum of 1 hour;
                                                    if you take longer
                                                    than 1 hour to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    action, the alarm
                                                    time is counted as
                                                    the actual amount of
                                                    time taken by you to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    action; or
                                                    performing VE
                                                    observations of the
                                                    DIFF or DLS/FF stack
                                                    at the frequency
                                                    specified in 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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
2. Tunnel or roller kiln        a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
 equipped with a WS.             limit in Table 1   scrubber liquid pH
                                 to this subpart    data according to
                                 and each           Sec.   63.8600(a);
                                 operating limit    reducing the
                                 in Item 2 of       scrubber liquid pH
                                 Table 2 to this    data to 3-hour block
                                 subpart for        averages according
                                 kilns equipped     to Sec.
                                 with WS.           63.8600(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid pH for each 3-
                                                    hour block period at
                                                    or above the average
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    established during
                                                    the HF/HCl
                                                    performance test in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated; and
                                                   ii Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data according
                                                    to 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 in which
                                                    compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.

[[Page 65565]]

 
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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
4. Tunnel or roller kiln        Each emission      Collecting the stack
 intending to comply with        limit in Table 1   temperature data
 dioxin/furan emission limit     to this subpart    according to Sec.
 without an ACI system.          and each           63.8600(a); and
                                 operating limit    maintaining the
                                 in Item 4 of       stack temperature at
                                 Table 2 to this    or below the highest
                                 subpart for        stack temperature
                                 kilns intending    established during
                                 to comply with     the dioxin/furan
                                 dioxin/furan       performance test in
                                 emission limit     which compliance was
                                 without an ACI     demonstrated.
                                 system.
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
                                                    stack temperature
                                                    data according to
                                                    Sec.   63.8600(a);
                                                    and maintaining the
                                                    stack temperature at
                                                    or below the highest
                                                    stack temperature
                                                    established during
                                                    the dioxin/furan
                                                    performance test in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
6. Glaze spray operation        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.
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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated; 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 in which
                                                    compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
8. Glaze spray operation        a. Each emission   i. 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   ii. Conducting weekly
                                 subpart for        visual inspections
                                 kilns equipped     of the system
                                 with a water       ductwork and control
                                 curtain.           equipment for leaks;
                                                    and
                                                   iii. Conducting
                                                    annual inspections
                                                    of the interior of
                                                    the control
                                                    equipment (if
                                                    applicable) to
                                                    determine the
                                                    structural integrity
                                                    and condition of the
                                                    control equipment.
9. Glaze spray operation        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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.

[[Page 65566]]

 
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 in
                                                    which compliance was
                                                    demonstrated.
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
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln; and
                                                   v. For each firing
                                                    load, documenting
                                                    the total tonnage of
                                                    greenware placed in
                                                    the kiln to ensure
                                                    that it is not
                                                    greater than the
                                                    maximum load
                                                    identified in Item
                                                    1.a.iii of Table 3
                                                    to this subpart; and
                                                   vi. Following
                                                    maintenance
                                                    procedures for each
                                                    kiln that, at a
                                                    minimum, specify the
                                                    frequency of
                                                    inspection and
                                                    maintenance of
                                                    temperature
                                                    monitoring devices,
                                                    controls that
                                                    regulate air-to-fuel
                                                    ratios, and controls
                                                    that regulate firing
                                                    cycles; and
                                                   vii. Developing and
                                                    maintaining records
                                                    for each
                                                    sanitaryware shuttle
                                                    kiln, as specified
                                                    in Sec.   63.8640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8545, you must meet each compliance date in 
the following table that applies to you:

          Table 8 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Compliance Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   If you have a(n) . . .      Then you must . . .   No later than . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed       Comply with the       December 28, 2015.
 affected source and the       applicable emission
 initial startup of your       limitations and
 affected source is after      work practice
 December 18, 2014, but        standards in Tables
 before December 28, 2015.     1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
2. New or reconstructed       Comply with the       Initial startup of
 affected source and the       applicable emission   your affected
 initial startup of your       limitations and       source.
 affected source is after      work practice
 December 28, 2015.            standards in Tables
                               1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
3. Existing affected source.  Comply with the       December 26, 2018.
                               applicable emission
                               limitations and
                               work practice
                               standards in Tables
                               1, 2, and 3 to this
                               subpart.
4. Existing area source that  Be in compliance      Initial startup of
 increases its emissions or    with this subpart.    your affected
 its potential to emit such                          source as a major
 that it becomes a major                             source.
 source of HAP by adding a
 new affected source or by
 reconstructing.
5. New area source (i.e., an  Be in compliance      Initial startup of
 area source for which         with this subpart.    your affected
 construction or                                     source as a major
 reconstruction commenced                            source.
 after December 18, 2014)
 that increases its
 emissions or its potential
 to emit such that it
 becomes a major source of
 HAP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec.  63.8630, you must submit each notification that 
applies to you according to the following table:

                   Table 9 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Deadlines for Submitting Notifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             If you . . .                   You must . . .        No later than . . .     As specified in . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Start up your affected source       Submit an Initial        June 22, 2016..........  Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
 before December 28, 2015.              Notification.

[[Page 65567]]

 
2. Start up your new or reconstructed  Submit an Initial        120 calendar days after  Sec.   63.9(b)(2).
 affected source on or after December   Notification.            you become subject to
 28, 2015.                                                       this subpart.
3. Are required to conduct a           Submit a notification    60 calendar days before  Sec.   63.7(b)(1).
 performance test.                      of intent to conduct a   the performance test
                                        performance test.        is scheduled to begin.
4. Are required to conduct a           Submit a Notification    60 calendar days         Sec.   63.9(h) and Sec.
 compliance demonstration that          of Compliance Status,    following the              63.10(d)(2).
 includes a performance test            including the            completion of the
 according to the requirements in       performance test         performance test, by
 Table 4 to this subpart.               results.                 the close of business.
5. Are required to conduct a           Submit a Notification    30 calendar days         Sec.   63.9(h).
 compliance demonstration required in   of Compliance Status.    following the
 Table 6 to this subpart that does                               completion of the
 not include a performance test                                  compliance
 (i.e., compliance demonstrations for                            demonstrations, by the
 the work practice standards).                                   close of business.
6. Request to use the routine control  Submit your request....  120 calendar days        .......................
 device maintenance alternative                                  before the compliance
 standard according to Sec.                                      date specified in Sec.
 63.8570(d).                                                       63.8545.
7. Own or operate an affected kiln     Submit a notification    48 hours following the   .......................
 that is subject to the work practice   of alternative fuel      declaration of a
 standard specified in Item 1 of        use.                     period of natural gas
 Table 3 to this subpart, and you                                curtailment or supply
 intend to use a fuel other than                                 interruption, as
 natural gas or equivalent to fire                               defined in Sec.
 the affected kiln.                                              63.8665.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Table 10 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
    You must submit . . .         contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A compliance report......  a. If there are no    Semiannually
                               deviations from any   according to the
                               emission              requirements in
                               limitations or work   Sec.   63.8635(b).
                               practice standards
                               that apply to you,
                               a statement that
                               there were no
                               deviations from the
                               emission
                               limitations or work
                               practice standards
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                               If there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out-of-control as
                               specified in your
                               OM&M plan, a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period.
                              b. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.8635(b).
                               operating limit)
                               during the
                               reporting period,
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.8635(c)(8). If
                               there were periods
                               during which the
                               CMS was out-of-
                               control, as
                               specified in your
                               OM&M plan, the
                               report must contain
                               the information in
                               Sec.   63.8635(d).
2. A report of alternative    The information in    If you are subject
 fuel use.                     Sec.   63.8635(g).    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:

[[Page 65568]]

           Table 11 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Citation                   Subject          Brief description         Applies to subpart KKKKK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1....................  Applicability.....  Initial applicability   Yes.
                                                      determination;
                                                      applicability after
                                                      standard established;
                                                      permit requirements;
                                                      extensions,
                                                      notifications.
Sec.   63.2....................  Definitions.......  Definitions for part    Yes.
                                                      63 standards.
Sec.   63.3....................  Units and           Units and               Yes.
                                  Abbreviations.      abbreviations for
                                                      part 63 standards.
Sec.   63.4....................  Prohibited          Compliance date;        Yes.
                                  Activities.         circumvention;
                                                      severability.
Sec.   63.5....................  Construction/       Applicability;          Yes.
                                  Reconstruction.     applications;
                                                      approvals.
Sec.   63.6(a).................  Applicability.....  General Provisions      Yes.
                                                      (GP) apply unless
                                                      compliance extension;
                                                      GP apply to area
                                                      sources that become
                                                      major.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)..........  Compliance Dates    Standards apply at      Yes.
                                  for New and         effective date; 3
                                  Reconstructed       years after effective
                                  sources.            date; upon startup;
                                                      10 years after
                                                      construction or
                                                      reconstruction
                                                      commences for section
                                                      112(f).
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)..............  Notification......  Must notify if          Yes.
                                                      commenced
                                                      construction or
                                                      reconstruction after
                                                      proposal.
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)..............  [Reserved]........
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)..............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that       Yes.
                                  for New and         become major must
                                  Reconstructed       comply with major
                                  Area Sources That   source standards
                                  Become Major.       immediately upon
                                                      becoming major,
                                                      regardless of whether
                                                      required to comply
                                                      when they were area
                                                      sources.
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)..........  Compliance Dates    Comply according to     Yes.
                                  for Existing        date in subpart,
                                  Sources.            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)-(4)..........  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)..............  Compliance Dates    Area sources that       Yes.
                                  for Existing Area   become major must
                                  Sources That        comply with major
                                  Become 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         No. See Sec.   63.8570(b) for
                                  Maintenance.        minimize emissions.     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           Yes.
                                  Maintenance.        maintenance
                                                      requirements
                                                      enforceable
                                                      independent of
                                                      emissions limitations.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)..............  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)..............  Startup, Shutdown,  Requirement for         No.
                                  and Malfunction     startup, shutdown,
                                  Plan (SSMP).        and malfunction (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)-(3)..........  Methods for         Compliance based on     Yes.
                                  Determining         performance test,
                                  Compliance.         operation and
                                                      maintenance plans,
                                                      records, inspection.
Sec.   63.6(g).................  Alternative         Procedures for getting  Yes.
                                  Standard.           an alternative
                                                      standard.
Sec.   63.6(h).................  Opacity/VE          Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  Standards.          opacity and VE
                                                      standards.
Sec.   63.6(i).................  Compliance          Procedures and          Yes.
                                  Extension.          criteria for
                                                      Administrator to
                                                      grant compliance
                                                      extension.
Sec.   63.6(j).................  Presidential        President may exempt    Yes.
                                  Compliance          source category.
                                  Exemption.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)..........  Performance Test    Dates for conducting    Yes.
                                  Dates.              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         Administrator may       Yes.
                                  Authority.          require a performance
                                                      test under CAA
                                                      section 114 at any
                                                      time.
Sec.   63.7(a)(4)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Delay in            Administrator of
                                  Performance         delay in performance
                                  Testing Due To      testing due to force
                                  Force Majeure.      majeure.
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Performance Test.   Administrator 60 days
                                                      before the test.
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)..............  Notification of     Must notify             Yes.
                                  Rescheduling.       Administrator 5 days
                                                      before scheduled date
                                                      of rescheduled date.
Sec.   63.7(c).................  Quality Assurance   Requirements; test      Yes.
                                  (QA)/Test Plan.     plan approval
                                                      procedures;
                                                      performance audit
                                                      requirements;
                                                      internal and external
                                                      QA procedures for
                                                      testing.
Sec.   63.7(d).................  Testing Facilities  Requirements for        Yes.
                                                      testing facilities.
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)..............  Conditions for      Performance tests must  No, Sec.   63.8595 specifies
                                  Conducting          be conducted under      requirements.
                                  Performance Tests.  representative
                                                      conditions.
                                                     Cannot conduct          Yes.
                                                      performance tests
                                                      during SSM; not a
                                                      violation to exceed
                                                      standard during SSM.

[[Page 65569]]

 
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(3)..........  Conditions for      Must conduct according  Yes.
                                  Conducting          to subpart and EPA
                                  Performance Tests.  test methods unless
                                                      Administrator
                                                      approves alternative;
                                                      must have at least
                                                      three test runs of at
                                                      least 1 hour each;
                                                      compliance is based
                                                      on arithmetic mean of
                                                      three runs;
                                                      conditions when data
                                                      from an additional
                                                      test run can be used.
Sec.   63.7(e)(4)..............  Testing under       Administrator's         Yes.
                                  Section 114.        authority 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    Must include raw data   Yes.
                                  Data Analysis.      in 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          Yes.
                                  Monitoring          monitoring
                                  Requirements.       requirements in
                                                      subpart.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)..............  Performance         Performance             Yes.
                                  Specifications.     Specifications in
                                                      appendix B of 40 CFR
                                                      part 60 apply.
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)..............  [Reserved]........  ......................  No.
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)..............  Monitoring with     Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  Flares.             flares in Sec.
                                                      63.11 apply.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)..............  Monitoring........  Must conduct            Yes.
                                                      monitoring according
                                                      to standard unless
                                                      Administrator
                                                      approves alternative.
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)..........  Multiple Effluents  Specific requirements   Yes.
                                  and Multiple        for installing and
                                  Monitoring          reporting on
                                  Systems.            monitoring systems.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)..............  Monitoring System   Maintenance consistent  Yes.
                                  Operation and       with good air
                                  Maintenance.        pollution control
                                                      practices.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)...........  Routine and         Reporting requirements  No.
                                  Predictable SSM.    for SSM when action
                                                      is described in SSMP.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)..........  SSM not in SSMP...  Reporting requirements  Yes.
                                                      for 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
                                  Requirements.       operation and
                                                      maintenance
                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(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            No, not applicable.
                                  Monitoring System   procedures.
                                  (COMS) Minimum
                                  Procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)..............  CMS Requirements..  Zero and high level     Yes.
                                                      calibration check
                                                      requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)..........  CMS Requirements..  Out-of-control periods  Yes.
Sec.   63.8(d)(1) and (2)......  CMS Quality         Requirements for CMS    Yes.
                                  Control.            quality control.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)..............  CMS Quality         Written procedures for  No, Sec.   63.8575(b)(9) specifies
                                  Control.            CMS.                    requirements.
Sec.   63.8(e).................  CMS Performance     Requirements for CMS    Yes.
                                  Evaluation.         performance
                                                      evaluation.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)..........  Alternative         Procedures for          Yes.
                                  Monitoring Method.  Administrator to
                                                      approve alternative
                                                      monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)..............  Alternative to      Procedures for          No, not applicable.
                                  Relative Accuracy   Administrator to
                                  Test.               approve 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             Requirements for        Yes.
                                  Notifications.      initial notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c).................  Request for         Can request if cannot   Yes.
                                  Compliance          comply by date or if
                                  Extension.          installed BACT/LAER.
Sec.   63.9(d).................  Notification of     For sources that        Yes.
                                  Special             commence construction
                                  Compliance          between proposal and
                                  Requirements for    promulgation and want
                                  New Source.         to comply 3 years
                                                      after effective date.
Sec.   63.9(e).................  Notification of     Notify Administrator    Yes.
                                  Performance Test.   60 days prior.
Sec.   63.9(f).................  Notification of VE/ Notify Administrator    No, not applicable.
                                  Opacity Test.       30 days prior.
Sec.   63.9(g)(1)..............  Additional          Notification of         Yes.
                                  Notifications       performance
                                  When Using CMS.     evaluation.
Sec.   63.9(g)(2)-(3)..........  Additional          Notification of COMS    No, not applicable.
                                  Notifications       data use;
                                  When Using CMS.     notification that
                                                      relative accuracy
                                                      alternative criterion
                                                      were exceeded.
Sec.   63.9(h).................  Notification of     Contents; submittal     Yes.
                                  Compliance Status.  requirements.

[[Page 65570]]

 
Sec.   63.9(i).................  Adjustment of       Procedures for          Yes.
                                  Submittal           Administrator to
                                  Deadlines.          approve change in
                                                      when notifications
                                                      must be submitted.
Sec.   63.9(j).................  Change in Previous  Must submit within 15   Yes.
                                  Information.        days after the change.
Sec.   63.10(a)................  Recordkeeping/      Applicability; general  Yes.
                                  Reporting.          information.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1).............  General             General requirements..  Yes.
                                  Recordkeeping
                                  Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)..........  Records Related to  Recordkeeping of        No.
                                  SSM.                occurrence and
                                                      duration of startups
                                                      and shutdowns.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii).........  Records Related to  Recordkeeping of        No. See Sec.   63.8640(c)(2) for
                                  SSM.                failures to meet a      recordkeeping of (1) date, time
                                                      standard.               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  Maintenance records...  Yes.
                                  SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v).....  Records Related to  Actions taken to        No.
                                  SSM.                minimize emissions
                                                      during SSM.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii)     CMS Records.......  Records when CMS is     Yes.
 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)-(15)........  Records...........  Additional records for  No, Sec.  Sec.   63.8575 and
                                                      CMS.                    63.8640 specify requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1) and (2).....  General Reporting   Requirements for        Yes.
                                  Requirements.       reporting;
                                                      performance test
                                                      results reporting.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3).............  Reporting Opacity   Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  or VE               reporting opacity and
                                  Observations.       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            No. See Sec.   63.8635(c)(8) for
                                                      submission.             malfunction reporting
                                                                              requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(3).........  Additional CMS      Requirements for CMS    No, Sec.  Sec.   63.8575 and
                                  Reports.            reporting.              63.8635 specify requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)(4).............  Reporting COMS      Requirements for        No, not applicable.
                                  data.               reporting COMS data
                                                      with performance test
                                                      data.
Sec.   63.10(f)................  Waiver for          Procedures for          Yes.
                                  Recordkeeping/      Administrator to
                                  Reporting.          waive.
Sec.   63.11...................  Flares............  Requirement for flares  No, not applicable.
Sec.   63.12...................  Delegation........  State authority to      Yes.
                                                      enforce standards.
Sec.   63.13...................  Addresses.........  Addresses for reports,  Yes.
                                                      notifications,
                                                      requests.
Sec.   63.14...................  Incorporation by    Materials incorporated  Yes.
                                  Reference.          by reference.
Sec.   63.15...................  Availability of     Information             Yes.
                                  Information.        availability;
                                                      confidential
                                                      information.
Sec.   63.16...................  Performance Track   Requirements for        Yes.
                                  Provisions.         Performance Track
                                                      member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-25724 Filed 10-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P