[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47894-47949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-15869]



[[Page 47893]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Brick and 
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Proposed 
Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 140 / Monday, July 22, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 47894]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7236-5]
RIN 2060-A167 and 2060-A168


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing; and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is adding two source categories, brick and structural 
clay products (BSCP) manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing, to 
the list of categories of major sources of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) published under section 112(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and to 
the source category schedule for national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The two source categories being 
added were originally included in the clay products manufacturing 
source category, which was on the initial list of source categories to 
be regulated. The EPA is, at the same time, proposing NESHAP for new 
and existing sources at BSCP manufacturing facilities and NESHAP for 
new sources at clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. The two proposed 
subparts would require major sources to meet emission standards 
reflecting the application of maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT). The HAP emitted by facilities in the BSCP and clay ceramics 
manufacturing source categories include hydrogen fluoride (HF), 
hydrogen chloride (HCl), and metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and 
selenium). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause 
adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus 
membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and kidney damage. 
The EPA has classified three of the HAP as human carcinogens, four as 
probable human carcinogens, and one as a possible human carcinogen. We 
estimate that the proposed rules would reduce nationwide emissions of 
HAP from these facilities by approximately 2,600 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr)(2,800 tons per year (tpy)), a reduction of approximately 45 
percent from the current level of emissions.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before September 20, 2002.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by August 12, 2002, a public hearing will be held on 
August 21, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments on BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP. By U.S. Postal 
Service, written comments on the proposed BSCP manufacturing NESHAP 
should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-99-30, 
U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In 
person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention 
Docket Number A-99-30, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to 
the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Comments on Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. By U.S. Postal 
Service, written comments on the proposed clay ceramics manufacturing 
NESHAP should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 
A-2000-48, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-2000-48, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy also be 
sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. on August 21, 2002 at the EPA's Environmental Research Center 
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate 
site nearby.
    Docket. Docket No. A-99-30 contains supporting information used in 
developing the proposed BSCP standards. Docket No. A-2000-48 contains 
supporting information used in developing the proposed clay ceramics 
standards. The dockets are located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and 
may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the proposed 
rules, contact Ms. Mary Johnson, Combustion Group, Emission Standards 
Division (MC-C439-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5025, e-mail address: 
[email protected]. For questions about the public hearing, contact 
Ms. Tanya Medley, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MC-C504-05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422, e-mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks 
in WordPerfect [reg] version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-99-30 for BSCP manufacturing and A-2000-48 for clay ceramics 
manufacturing. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: OAQPS Document Control Officer, MC-
C404-02, Attention: Ms. Mary Johnson, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as 
CBI only to the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it 
is received by the EPA, the information may be made available to the 
public without further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 
Tanya Medley at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. Persons 
interested in attending the public hearing must also call Ms. Medley to 
verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The address, 
telephone number, and e-mail address for Ms. Medley are listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If a public hearing 
is held, it will provide interested parties

[[Page 47895]]

the opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these 
proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The dockets are organized and complete files of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of the proposed 
rules. The dockets are dynamic files because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated rules and 
their preambles, the contents of the dockets will serve as the record 
in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) 
The regulatory text and other materials related to the proposed rules 
are available for review in the dockets, or copies may be mailed on 
request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying docket materials.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the dockets, 
an electronic copy of each proposed rule will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of each rule will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action 
are those industrial facilities that manufacture BSCP and clay 
ceramics. Brick and structural clay products manufacturing is 
classified under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 3251, 
Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 3253, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile; and 
3259, Other Structural Clay Products. The North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes for BSCP manufacturing are 327121, 
Brick and Structural Clay Tile; 327122, Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile 
Manufacturing; and 327123, Other Structural Clay Products. Clay 
ceramics manufacturing is classified under SIC codes 3253, Ceramic Wall 
and Floor Tile; and 3261, Vitreous Plumbing Fixtures (Sanitaryware). 
The NAICS codes for clay ceramics manufacturing are 327122, Ceramic 
Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing; and 327111, Vitreous China Plumbing 
Fixture and China and Earthenware Bathroom Accessories Manufacturing. 
Regulated categories and entities are shown in Table 1 of this 
preamble.

                                   Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                         SIC            NAICS                    entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial.................................            3251          327121  Brick and structural clay tile
                                                                              manufacturing facilities (BSCP
                                                                              NESHAP)
Industrial.................................            3253          327122  Ceramic wall and floor tile
                                                                              manufacturing facilities (Clay
                                                                              Ceramics NESHAP) and extruded tile
                                                                              manufacturing facilities (BSCP
                                                                              NESHAP)
Industrial.................................            3259          327123  Other structural clay products
                                                                              manufacturing facilities (BSCP
                                                                              NESHAP)
Industrial.................................            3261          327111  Vitreous plumbing fixtures
                                                                              (sanitaryware) manufacturing
                                                                              facilities (Clay Ceramics NESHAP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.8385 of the 
proposed BSCP rule and Sec. 63.8535 of the proposed clay ceramics rule. 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Introduction
    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What is the history of the source categories?
    D. What are the health effects of pollutants emitted from the 
brick and structural clay products manufacturing and clay ceramics 
manufacturing source categories?
II. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural Clay 
Products Manufacturing
    A. What source category is regulated by the proposed rule?
    B. What are the affected sources?
    C. When must I comply with the proposed rule?
    D. What are the emission limits?
    E. What are the operating limits?
    F. What are the performance test and initial compliance 
requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the 
Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    C. What are the energy impacts?
    D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
    E. What are the cost impacts?
    F. How can we reduce the cost of the proposed rule?
    G. What are the economic impacts?
IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Brick and 
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing
    A. How did we select the emission sources and pollutants that 
will be regulated?
    B. How did we determine subcategories?
    C. How did we determine the MACT floors for existing sources?
    D. How did we determine the MACT floors for new sources?
    E. How did we select the format of the proposed rule?
    F. How did we determine the emission limits?
    G. How did we select the operating limits and monitoring 
requirements?
V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
    A. What source category is regulated by the proposed rule?
    B. What are the affected sources?
    C. When must I comply with the proposed rule?
    D. What are the emission limits?
    E. What are the operating limits?
    F. What are the performance test and initial compliance 
requirements?
    G. What are the continuous compliance requirements?
    H. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the 
Proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP
    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the water and solid waste impacts?
    C. What are the energy impacts?
    D. Are there any additional environmental and health impacts?
    E. What are the cost impacts?
    F. What are the economic impacts?

[[Page 47896]]

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Clay 
Ceramics Manufacturing
    A. How did we select the emission sources and pollutants that 
will be regulated?
    B. How did we determine subcategories?
    C. How did we determine the MACT floors for existing sources?
    D. How did we determine the MACT floors for new sources?
    E. How did we select the format of the proposed rule?
    F. How did we determine the emission limits?
    G. How did we select the operating limits and monitoring 
requirements?
VIII. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP 
for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of 
HAP are those stationary sources or groups of stationary sources that 
are located within a contiguous area under common control that emit or 
have the potential to emit, considering controls, 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) 
or more of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) or more of any 
combination of HAP. Area sources are those stationary sources or groups 
of stationary sources that are not major sources.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 
sources).
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

C. What Is the History of the Source Categories?

    We published an initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 
(57 FR 31576). Included on the initial source category list were major 
sources of HAP emissions from the clay products manufacturing industry.
    Early in the regulatory development process, four distinct 
industries were identified within the clay products manufacturing 
source category. In a notice published in the Federal Register on 
November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63025), we stated that we anticipated 
replacing the clay products manufacturing source category with four 
separate source categories representing those four industries: BSCP 
manufacturing, ceramics manufacturing, clay minerals processing, and 
lightweight aggregate manufacturing. We further stated that we expected 
to propose and promulgate separate MACT standards for each of the 
anticipated four source categories, and that the proposal for each of 
the standards would add the new source category to the source category 
list (64 FR 63028).
    After further consideration, we have decided to propose and 
promulgate MACT standards for only two of the four anticipated source 
categories: BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing. These 
two categories are included in this action. The similarity of affected 
sources and types of HAP emissions within these two categories provides 
the opportunity to propose rules for both industries under one action. 
Consequently, today's action replaces the clay products manufacturing 
source category on the source category list with BSCP manufacturing and 
clay ceramics manufacturing. At this time, we do not anticipate 
proposing and promulgating MACT standards for the clay minerals 
processing and lightweight aggregate manufacturing industries. Because 
we have not added those industries to the source category list, we need 
not take formal action to remove them from the list. However, we are 
providing notice of our current plans here so that interested persons 
have an opportunity to comment.

D. What Are the Health Effects of Pollutants Emitted From the Brick and 
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing 
Source Categories?

    Today's proposed rules protect air quality and promote the public 
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section 
112(b)(1) of the CAA. Emissions data collected during development of 
the proposed rules show that HF, HCl, and metals (antimony, arsenic, 
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, 
and selenium) are emitted from BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing 
facilities. Exposure to these HAP is associated with a variety of 
adverse health effects. These adverse health effects 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 three of 
the HAP as human carcinogens, four as probable human carcinogens, and 
one as a possible human carcinogen. We do not know the extent to which 
the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations 
surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse 
effects do occur, today's proposed rules would reduce emissions and 
subsequent exposures.
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
    Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause 
severe respiratory damage in humans,

[[Page 47897]]

including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic (long-term) 
exposure to fluoride at low levels has a beneficial effect of dental 
cavity prevention and may also be useful for the treatment of 
osteoporosis. Exposure to higher levels of fluoride may cause dental 
fluorosis or mottling, while very high exposures through drinking water 
or air can result in crippling skeletal fluorosis. One study reported 
menstrual irregularities in women occupationally exposed to fluoride. 
We have not classified HF for carcinogenicity.
2. Hydrogen Chloride
    Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to 
the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute (short-term) inhalation 
exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and 
inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic (long-term) 
occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis, 
bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low 
concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No 
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects 
of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus 
cycles have been reported in females and increased fetal mortality and 
decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. We have not 
classified HCl for carcinogenicity.
3. Antimony
    Acute (short-term) exposure to antimony by inhalation in humans 
results in effects on the skin and eyes. Respiratory effects, such as 
inflammation of the lungs, chronic bronchitis, and chronic emphysema, 
are the primary effects noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to 
antimony in humans via inhalation. Human studies are inconclusive 
regarding antimony exposure and cancer, while animal studies have 
reported lung tumors in rats exposed to antimony trioxide via 
inhalation. We have not classified antimony for carcinogenicity.
4. Arsenic
    Acute (short-term) high-level inhalation exposure to arsenic dust 
or fumes has resulted in gastrointestinal effects (nausea, diarrhea, 
abdominal pain), and central and peripheral nervous system disorders. 
Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to inorganic arsenic in humans 
is associated with irritation of the skin and mucous membranes. Human 
data suggest a relationship between inhalation exposure of women 
working at or living near metal smelters and an increased risk of 
reproductive effects, such as spontaneous abortions. Inorganic arsenic 
exposure in humans by the inhalation route has been shown to be 
strongly associated with lung cancer, while ingestion of inorganic 
arsenic in humans has been linked to a form of skin cancer and also to 
bladder, liver, and lung cancer. We have classified inorganic arsenic 
as a Group A, human carcinogen.
5. Beryllium
    Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to high levels of beryllium 
has been observed to cause inflammation of the lungs or acute 
pneumonitis (reddening and swelling of the lungs) in humans; after 
exposure ends, these symptoms may be reversible. Chronic (long-term) 
inhalation exposure of humans to beryllium has been reported to cause 
chronic beryllium disease (berylliosis), in which granulomatous 
(noncancerous) lesions develop in the lung. Inhalation exposure to 
beryllium has been demonstrated to cause lung cancer in rats and 
monkeys. Human studies are limited, but suggest a causal relationship 
between beryllium exposure and an increased risk of lung cancer. We 
have classified beryllium as a Group B1, probable human carcinogen.
6. Cadmium
    The acute (short-term) effects of cadmium inhalation in humans 
consist mainly of effects on the lung, such as pulmonary irritation. 
Chronic (long-term) inhalation or oral exposure to cadmium leads to a 
build-up of cadmium in the kidneys that can cause kidney disease. 
Cadmium has been shown to be a developmental toxicant in animals, 
resulting in fetal malformations and other effects, but no conclusive 
evidence exists in humans. An association between cadmium exposure and 
an increased risk of lung cancer has been reported from human studies, 
but these studies are inconclusive due to confounding factors. Animal 
studies have demonstrated an increase in lung cancer from long-term 
inhalation exposure to cadmium. We have classified cadmium as a Group 
B1, probable human carcinogen.
7. Chromium
    Chromium may be emitted in two forms, trivalent chromium (chromium 
III) or hexavalent chromium (chromium VI). The respiratory tract is the 
major target organ for chromium VI toxicity, for acute (short-term) and 
chronic (long-term) inhalation exposures. Shortness of breath, 
coughing, and wheezing have been reported from acute exposure to 
chromium VI, while perforations and ulcerations of the septum, 
bronchitis, decreased pulmonary function, pneumonia, and other 
respiratory effects have been noted from chronic exposure. Limited 
human studies suggest that chromium VI inhalation exposure may be 
associated with complications during pregnancy and childbirth, while 
animal studies have not reported reproductive effects from inhalation 
exposure to chromium VI. Human and animal studies have clearly 
established that inhaled chromium VI is a carcinogen, resulting in an 
increased risk of lung cancer. We have classified chromium VI as a 
Group A, human carcinogen.
    Chromium III is much less toxic than chromium VI. The respiratory 
tract is also the major target organ for chromium III toxicity, similar 
to chromium VI. Chromium III is an essential element in humans, with a 
daily intake of 50 to 200 micrograms per day ([mu]g/d) recommended for 
an adult. The body can detoxify some amount of chromium VI to chromium 
III. We have not classified chromium III for carcinogenicity.
8. Cobalt
    Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of cobalt by inhalation 
in humans and animals results in respiratory effects such as a 
significant decrease in ventilatory function, congestion, edema, and 
hemorrhage of the lung. Respiratory effects are also the major effects 
noted from chronic (long-term) exposure to cobalt by inhalation, with 
respiratory irritation, wheezing, asthma, pneumonia, and fibrosis 
noted. Cardiac effects, congestion of the liver, kidneys, and 
conjunctiva, and immunological effects have also been noted in humans. 
Cobalt is an essential element in humans, as a constituent of vitamin 
B12. Human and animal studies are inconclusive with respect to 
potential carcinogenicity of cobalt. We have not classified cobalt for 
carcinogenicity.
9. Mercury
    Mercury exists in three forms: Elemental mercury, inorganic mercury 
compounds (primarily mercuric chloride), and organic mercury compounds 
(primarily methyl mercury). Each form exhibits different health 
effects. Brick, structural clay products, and clay ceramics 
manufacturing may release elemental or inorganic mercury, but not 
methyl mercury so those health effects are not addressed in this 
preamble. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of elemental 
mercury in humans results in central nervous system (CNS) effects such 
as tremors,

[[Page 47898]]

mood changes, and slowed sensory and motor nerve function. High 
inhalation exposures can also cause kidney damage and effects on the 
gastrointestinal tract and respiratory system. Chronic (long-term) 
exposure to elemental mercury in humans also affects the CNS, with 
effects such as increased excitability, irritability, excessive 
shyness, and tremors. We have not classified elemental mercury for 
carcinogenicity.
    Acute exposure to inorganic mercury by the oral route may result in 
effects such as nausea, vomiting, and severe abdominal pain. The major 
effect from chronic exposure to inorganic mercury is kidney damage. 
Reproductive and developmental animal studies have reported effects 
such as alterations in testicular tissue, increased embryo resorption 
rates, and abnormalities of development. Mercuric chloride (an 
inorganic mercury compound) exposure has been shown to result in 
forestomach, thyroid, and renal tumors in experimental animals. We have 
classified mercuric chloride as a Group C, possible human carcinogen.
10. Manganese
    Health effects in humans have been associated with both 
deficiencies and excess intakes of manganese. Chronic (long-term) 
exposure to low levels of manganese in the diet is considered to be 
nutritionally essential in humans, with a recommended daily allowance 
of 2 to 5 milligrams per day (mg/d). Chronic exposure to high levels of 
manganese by inhalation in humans results primarily in CNS effects. 
Visual reaction time, hand steadiness, and eye-hand coordination were 
affected in chronically-exposed workers. Manganism, characterized by 
feelings of weakness and lethargy, tremors, a mask-like face, and 
psychological disturbances, may result from chronic exposure to higher 
levels. Impotence and loss of libido have been noted in male workers 
afflicted with manganism attributed to inhalation exposures. We have 
classified manganese as Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity.
11. Nickel
    Nickel is an essential element in some animal species, and it has 
been suggested it may be essential for human nutrition. Nickel 
dermatitis, consisting of itching of the fingers, hands, and forearms, 
is the most common effect in humans from chronic (long-term) skin 
contact with nickel. Respiratory effects have also been reported in 
humans from inhalation exposure to nickel. No information is available 
regarding the reproductive or developmental effects of nickel in 
humans, but animal studies have reported such effects. Human and animal 
studies have reported an increased risk of lung and nasal cancers from 
exposure to nickel refinery dusts and nickel subsulfide. Animal studies 
of soluble nickel compounds (i.e., nickel carbonyl) have reported lung 
tumors. We have classified nickel refinery dust and nickel subsulfide 
as Group A, human carcinogens, and nickel carbonyl as a Group B2, 
probable human carcinogen.
12. Lead
    Lead is a very toxic element, causing a variety of effects at low 
dose levels. Brain damage, kidney damage, and gastrointestinal distress 
may occur from acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of lead in 
humans. Chronic (long-term) exposure to lead in humans results in 
effects on the blood, CNS, blood pressure, and kidneys. Children are 
particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead, with slowed 
cognitive development, reduced growth, and other effects reported. 
Reproductive effects, such as decreased sperm count in men and 
spontaneous abortions in women, have been associated with lead 
exposure. The developing fetus is at particular risk from maternal lead 
exposure, with low birth weight and slowed postnatal neurobehavioral 
development noted. Human studies are inconclusive regarding lead 
exposure and cancer, while animal studies have reported an increase in 
kidney cancer from lead exposure by the oral route. We have classified 
lead as a Group B2, probable human carcinogen.
13. Selenium
    Selenium is a naturally occurring substance that is toxic at high 
concentrations but is also a nutritionally essential element. Acute 
(short-term) exposure to elemental selenium, hydrogen selenide, and 
selenium dioxide by inhalation results primarily in respiratory 
effects, such as irritation of the mucous membranes, pulmonary edema, 
severe bronchitis, and bronchial pneumonia. Studies of humans 
chronically (long-term) exposed to high levels of selenium in food and 
water have reported discoloration of the skin, pathological deformation 
and loss of nails, loss of hair, excessive tooth decay and 
discoloration, lack of mental alertness, and listlessness. The 
consumption of high levels of selenium by pigs, sheep, and cattle has 
been shown to interfere with normal fetal development and to produce 
birth defects. Results of human and animal studies suggest that 
supplementation with some forms of selenium may result in a reduced 
incidence of several tumor types. One selenium compound, selenium 
sulfide, is carcinogenic in animals exposed orally. We have classified 
elemental selenium as a Group D, not classifiable as to human 
carcinogenicity, and selenium sulfide as a Group B2, probable human 
carcinogen.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Brick and Structural Clay Products 
Manufacturing

A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Proposed Rule?

    Today's proposed rule for BSCP manufacturing applies to BSCP 
manufacturing facilities that are, 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, other brick); clay pipe; roof tile; 
extruded floor and wall tile; and/or other extruded, dimensional clay 
products. Brick and structural clay products primarily are produced 
from common clay and shale. Production of BSCP typically consists of 
processing and handling the raw materials, forming and cutting bricks 
and shapes, and drying and firing the bricks and shapes. One by-product 
of brick manufacturing is crushed brick, which is produced at some 
facilities by crushing reject bricks.
    There are a total of 189 domestic BSCP manufacturing facilities; 
170 of these facilities primarily produce brick, and 19 of these 
facilities primarily produce structural clay products. The 189 BSCP 
manufacturing facilities are located in 39 States and are owned by 90 
companies. Seventy-seven of the companies are small businesses, and 
these 77 companies own 93 of the BSCP manufacturing facilities. 
Thirteen of the companies are large businesses, and these 13 companies 
own 96 BSCP manufacturing facilities.
    All BSCP are fired either in continuous (tunnel or roller) or batch 
(periodic) kilns. Because the vast majority of continuous kilns are 
tunnel kilns, continuous kilns, including roller kilns, will be 
referred to as tunnel kilns for the remainder of this preamble. A total 
of 308 permitted and operable tunnel kilns were reported by industry; 
296 of these kilns are located at facilities that are estimated, based 
on uncontrolled emissions, to be major sources. Of the 296 tunnel kilns 
located at major sources, 269 are located at brick manufacturing 
facilities and 27 are located at structural clay products manufacturing 
facilities. A total of 227 permitted and operable periodic kilns

[[Page 47899]]

were reported by industry; 164 of these kilns are located at facilities 
that are estimated to be major sources. Of the 164 periodic kilns 
located at major sources, 81 are located at brick manufacturing 
facilities and 83 are located at structural clay products manufacturing 
facilities.
    Most tunnel kilns are fired with natural gas, although coal, 
sawdust, landfill gas, and fuel oil also are used. Many kilns have 
propane available as a back-up fuel. Most of the sawdust-fired tunnel 
kilns duct some or all of the kiln exhaust to rotary sawdust dryers 
prior to release to the atmosphere. Tunnel kilns range in size from 
about 104 meters (m) (340 feet (ft)) to 152 m (500 ft) in length and 
include a dryer, a firing zone, and a cooling zone. The dryer can be a 
totally separate structure from the tunnel kiln or can be in-line (part 
of the tunnel kiln). In tunnel kilns with in-line dryers, the dryer and 
kiln exhaust fans are balanced so that kiln combustion gases do not 
enter the dryer. A neutral point, created by the draft from the dryer 
and the kiln, separates the dryer and kiln atmospheres. A similar 
neutral point also exists between the firing and cooling zones of all 
tunnel kilns. Some dryers that precede coal-fired kilns use kiln gases 
to aid in the drying process. This process is called back-drafting and 
is accomplished by changing the balance between the dryer and kiln 
exhaust fans so that the dryer/kiln neutral point moves into the kiln 
and allows some combustion gases to enter the dryer. Tunnel kiln firing 
zones typically maintain a maximum temperature of about 1090 deg.C 
(2000 deg.F). Production rates for tunnel kilns averaged about 5.7 
megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (6.3 tons per hour (tph)) in 1996. During 
firing, small amounts of excess fuel, typically natural gas, are 
sometimes introduced to the kiln atmosphere, creating a reducing 
atmosphere that adds color to the surface of the bricks. This process 
is called flashing. After firing, the bricks enter the cooling zone, 
where they are cooled to near ambient temperatures before leaving the 
tunnel kiln. The bricks then are removed from the kiln cars, stored, 
and shipped.
    Periodic kilns are the most common type of kiln for firing clay 
pipe and are also used to produce brick and other structural clay 
products. Types of periodic kilns that are used in the BSCP industry 
include beehive kilns and shuttle kilns. Beehive kilns are round, brick 
structures in which bricks or structural clay products are manually 
loaded or stacked. Shuttle kilns typically are steel-framed, 
refractory-lined structures that are loaded with brick or structural 
clay product-laden kiln cars. Following loading, periodic kilns are 
fired for a set amount of time, depending on the product. Firing cycles 
for brick range from 40 hours to about 200 hours. Firing cycles for 
structural clay products vary over a much wider range (16 hours to 
about 700 hours) because the sizes of the products vary over a wide 
range. The average production rate for periodic kilns in the industry 
is less than 0.5 tph (on a continuous basis). Structural clay tile that 
are fired in periodic kilns typically require relatively short firing 
cycles, while large clay pipe typically require hundreds of hours. 
Facilities that use periodic kilns typically operate several kilns, and 
groups or banks of periodic kilns often are ducted to a single stack. 
Most periodic kilns are fired with natural gas, while a few periodic 
kilns are fired with coal or sawdust.
    The primary HAP emissions sources at BSCP manufacturing plants are 
tunnel kilns and periodic kilns, which emit HF, HCl, and HAP metals. 
Kilns also emit particulate matter (PM) and sulfur dioxide 
(SO2). Other sources of HAP emissions at BSCP manufacturing 
plants are the raw material processing and handling equipment. The air 
pollution control devices (APCD) that are used by the industry to 
control emissions from kilns include dry lime injection fabric filters 
(DIFF), dry lime scrubber/fabric filters (DLS/FF), dry limestone 
adsorbers (DLA), wet scrubbers (WS), and fabric filters. The following 
paragraphs describe the control systems.
    Dry lime injection fabric filters are used to control HF, HCl, 
SO2, and PM emissions from tunnel kilns. These systems 
inject hydrated lime (a dry lime powder) into the kiln exhaust. The 
lime and kiln exhaust mix in a reaction chamber or an exhaust duct and 
are ducted to a fabric filter. Acid gas removal takes place in the 
exhaust duct or reaction chamber and subsequent ductwork, and across 
the lime-caked fabric filter bags. The fabric filter then removes the 
lime and other PM from the exhaust stream prior to release to the 
atmosphere. The spent lime and PM collected by the fabric filter are 
then disposed of as solid waste. One facility ships the lime to a 
landfill where it is used to solidify liquid hazardous waste. The 
facility does not have to pay for spent lime disposal (other than 
shipping costs) because the lime is useful to the landfill.
    Dry lime scrubber/fabric filters are also used to control HF, HCl, 
SO2, and PM emissions from tunnel kilns. These systems mix 
fresh hydrated lime, re-circulated hydrated lime, and a small amount of 
water in a conditioning drum. The lime/water mixture then is injected 
into a reaction chamber where it mixes with the kiln exhaust. Acid gas 
removal takes place in the reaction chamber, subsequent ductwork, and 
across the lime-caked fabric filter bags. Additionally, the hot exhaust 
gases from the kiln evaporate the water in the lime/water mixture, 
thereby cooling the exhaust gases before entering the fabric filter. 
From the reaction chamber, the exhaust stream is ducted to a fabric 
filter for PM removal, and a percentage of the fabric filter catch is 
reintroduced into the conditioning drum along with fresh lime and 
water.
    Dry limestone adsorbers are also used to control tunnel kiln 
emissions. These systems feed limestone into the top of a reaction 
chamber countercurrent to the kiln exhaust gases. The limestone 
cascades through multiple baffles within the chamber and reacts with 
and removes HF, and, to a lesser degree, HCl and SO2 from 
the kiln exhaust. The system does not provide a mechanism for 
controlling PM and may actually create PM emissions in some instances. 
Depending on the system, the limestone is then pneumatically conveyed 
directly back to the top of the chamber or is mechanically processed 
(scraped) to remove reacted material from the surface and then 
pneumatically conveyed back to the top of the reaction chamber. New 
limestone is periodically added to the system as needed. We have 
several concerns, which are discussed in section IV.B of this preamble, 
with the DLA control technology.
    Attempts are currently under way to control a periodic kiln with a 
DLA, but based on available test data and discussions with the facility 
manager, the system has not been successful in controlling HF emissions 
from the kiln. The facility is continuing efforts to solve the problems 
with the APCD, but at this point, the DLA has not been proven effective 
for controlling emissions from periodic kilns.
    Wet scrubbers are also used to control HF, HCl, SO2, and 
PM emissions from tunnel kilns. One type of WS system currently in use 
is a vertical, packed-tower scrubber. This system first quenches the 
exhaust gases with a soda-ash and water solution. The exhaust gases 
then pass through 5 feet of random dump packing followed by a demister. 
The soda-ash and water solution is also added to the top of the packing 
material, countercurrent to the gas flow. The other WS currently in 
use, which recently began operation, is a fluidized bed scrubber that 
uses water and sodium hydroxide as the scrubbing solution. Test data 
documenting the

[[Page 47900]]

performance of the fluidized bed scrubber are not yet available. The 
facility that is currently operating wet scrubbers discharges the 
scrubber wastewater directly to the sewer. This water disposal option 
is not available to all facilities, but some facilities have indicated 
that they would have similar disposal options.
    In addition, another type of wet scrubber system has been developed 
specifically for the brick industry. The system is a cross-flow 
scrubber that includes the addition of magnesium hydroxide 
(Mg(OH)2) to the scrubber water. The Mg(OH)2 
reacts with HF, HCl, and SO2 to form several salts, 
including magnesium fluoride (MgF2), magnesium chloride 
(MgCl2), and magnesium sulfate (MgSO4). A pilot-
scale test of the system reportedly showed HF control efficiencies 
greater than 99 percent, SO2 control efficiencies greater 
than 95 percent, and PM concentrations lower than 0.023 grams per dry 
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot 
(gr/dscf)). The testing did not include measurements of HCl emissions. 
The system can be designed to discharge directly to a sewer if 
available or can include a spray dryer (i.e., evaporator) to eliminate 
the liquid waste.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

    The existing affected source, which is the portion of each source 
in the category for which we are setting emission standards, is any 
existing tunnel kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 
9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired product. Such tunnel kilns may be 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: 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.
    Today's proposed rule focuses on those process streams from 
existing tunnel kilns that exhaust directly to the atmosphere or to an 
APCD. For existing tunnel kilns at or above the threshold design 
capacity that do not have sawdust dryers, the kiln exhaust process 
stream (i.e., the only process stream) is subject to the requirements 
of today's proposed rule. In accordance with CAA section 112(d)(1), we 
have divided tunnel kilns that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers into two 
classes for purposes of regulation. For existing tunnel kilns at or 
above the threshold design capacity that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers 
prior to July 22, 2002, only the process stream that is emitted 
directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD is subject to the requirements 
of today's proposed rule; any process stream from such kilns that is 
ducted to a sawdust dryer is not subject to those requirements.
    By contrast, for existing tunnel kilns at or above the threshold 
design capacity that first duct exhaust to sawdust dryers on or after 
July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., both the process stream that 
is emitted directly to the atmosphere or to an APCD and the process 
stream that is ducted to a sawdust dryer) is subject to the same level 
of control requirement as a new tunnel kiln. It is important to 
regulate all of the exhaust from this subset of existing tunnel kilns 
in order to prevent existing tunnel kilns that do not duct exhaust to 
sawdust dryers prior to July 22, 2002 from circumventing the control 
requirements of today's proposed rule by ducting to sawdust dryers. It 
also makes sense to subject all of the exhaust from kilns that first 
duct exhaust to sawdust dryers on or after July 22, 2002 to the 
requirements of today's proposed rule because these sources, like new 
sources, have options for controlling their emissions that are not as 
readily available to existing sources. Thus, the cost of requiring MACT 
for sources that choose to first duct kiln exhaust to a sawdust dryer 
on or after July 22, 2002 is considered reasonable.
    In addition, each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected 
source, regardless of design capacity, and all process streams from new 
or reconstructed tunnel kilns are subject to the requirements of 
today's proposed rule. A source is a new affected source if 
construction began after July 22, 2002. An affected source is 
reconstructed if the criteria defined in Sec. 63.2 are met. An affected 
source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.
    An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit 
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 
tph) of fired product on a 30-day rolling average basis is not subject 
to the requirements of today's proposed rule. Kilns that are used 
exclusively for research and development (R&D) and not used to 
manufacture products for commercial sale are not subject to the 
requirements of today's proposed rule. Finally, kilns that are used 
exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products are not 
subject to the requirements of today's proposed rule.

C. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?

    Existing affected sources must comply within 3 years of [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. New or 
reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup before [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] must comply no 
later than [Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal 
Register]. New or reconstructed affected sources with an initial 
startup after [Date of Publication of the Final Rule in the Federal 
Register] must comply upon initial startup. Existing area sources that 
subsequently become major sources have 3 years from the date they 
become major sources to come into compliance. Any portion of existing 
facilities that become new or reconstructed major sources and any new 
or reconstructed area sources that become major sources must be in 
compliance upon initial startup.

D. What Are the Emission Limits?

    Today's proposed rule includes emission limits in the form of 
production-based mass emission limits and percent reduction 
requirements. In establishing the HAP emission limits, we selected PM 
as a surrogate for HAP metals (including mercury in particulate form). 
Today's proposed rule proposes HF, HCl, and PM emission limits for 
existing, new, and reconstructed affected sources at BSCP manufacturing 
facilities.
    If you own or operate an existing tunnel kiln with a design 
capacity equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) or a new or 
reconstructed tunnel kiln, regardless of capacity, you would be 
required to meet an HF emission limit of 0.014 kilogram per megagram 
(kg/Mg) (0.027 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of product or reduce 
uncontrolled HF emissions by at least 95 percent for affected process 
streams. You would be required to meet an HCl emission limit of 0.019 
kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by 
at least 90 percent. You would be required to meet a PM emission limit 
of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of product.

E. What Are the Operating Limits?

    In addition to the emission limits, today's proposed rule includes 
operating limits that would apply to APCD used to comply with the 
proposed rule. The operating limits require you to maintain certain 
process or APCD parameters within levels

[[Page 47901]]

established during performance tests. Each facility affected by the 
proposed rule would be required to prepare, implement, and revise, as 
necessary, an operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. The 
OM&M plan generally specifies the operating parameters that will be 
monitored; the frequency that parameter values will be determined; the 
limits for each parameter; procedures for proper operation and 
maintenance of process units, APCD, and monitoring equipment; 
procedures for responding to parameter deviations; and procedures for 
documenting compliance.
    We have established operating limits for DIFF (dry lime injection 
fabric filters), DLS/FF (dry lime scrubbers/fabric filters), and WS 
(wet scrubbers). If you operate a DIFF or DLS/FF, you would be required 
to initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection 
system alarm and complete corrective actions according to 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 reporting period, and maintain the average fabric filter inlet 
temperature for each 3-hour block period at or below the average 
temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F), established during your 
performance test. You would be required to maintain free-flowing lime 
in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all times for continuous 
injection systems and maintain the feeder setting at or above the level 
established during your performance test. If you operate a DLS/FF, you 
would be required to maintain the average water injection rate for each 
3-hour block period at or above the level established during your 
performance test.
    If you operate a WS (wet scrubber), you would be required to 
maintain the average scrubber pressure drop, the average scrubber 
liquid pH, the average scrubber liquid flow rate, and the average 
chemical addition rate, if applicable, for each 3-hour block period at 
or above the average values established during your performance test.
    If you own or operate an affected source equipped with an 
alternative APCD or technique not listed in the proposed rule, you 
would establish operating limits for the appropriate operating 
parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator as 
described in 40 CFR 63.8(f). You would be required to submit a request 
for approval of alternative monitoring procedures that includes a 
description of the alternative APCD or technique, the type of 
monitoring device or procedure that would be used, the appropriate 
operating parameters that would be monitored, and the frequency that 
the operating parameter values would be determined and recorded. You 
would establish site-specific operating limits during your performance 
test based on the information included in the approved alternative 
monitoring procedures request. You would be required to install, 
operate, and maintain the parameter monitoring system for the 
alternative APCD or technique according to your OM&M plan. If the 
Administrator determines that parameter monitoring cannot assure 
continuous compliance, a continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) 
to measure HF and/or HCl emissions may be required.
    If a facility applies for the approval of alternative monitoring 
procedures, including operating parameters, long-term APCD performance 
is an important consideration. Some of the new APCD that are being 
developed for controlling HF, HCl, and PM from brick kilns are similar 
to DIFF and DLS/FF, but they use different dry media, such as crushed 
limestone, sodium bicarbonate, and possibly other materials. One system 
uses powdered limestone as a primary sorbent, followed by lesser 
amounts of hydrated lime and sodium bicarbonate, each in a different 
reaction chamber. This type of system is designed to minimize sorbent 
costs by using the least expensive sorbent for primary control and 
using more expensive (and effective) sorbents to provide additional 
acid gas removal. The proposed operating limits for DIFF are 
appropriate for these DIFF-type systems, but the limits will require 
some modification to address specific design differences, such as the 
use of multiple sorbents.
    We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM CEMS 
as a method to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM 
emission limits for BSCP tunnel kilns. Specifically, we are soliciting 
comment on the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM emission 
limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and averaging 
time of a CEMS-based PM emission limit and the methodology for deriving 
the limit from the available data for BSCP tunnel kilns.
    We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance 
of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and 
through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is 
sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on BSCP tunnel kilns.
    We intend to propose revisions to the performance specification for 
PM CEMS (Performance Specification 11 (PS-11), 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
B, and Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) in the near future with 
subsequent promulgation.

F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to 
conduct an initial performance test using specified EPA test methods to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. A performance 
test must be conducted before renewing your 40 CFR part 70 operating 
permit or at least every 5 years following the initial performance 
test, as well as when an operating limit parameter value is being 
revised. You would test at the outlet of the APCD and prior to any 
releases to the atmosphere for all affected sources. If meeting the 
percent reduction emission limits for HF or HCl, you would test at the 
APCD inlet. Under the proposed rule, you must conduct each test while 
operating at the maximum production level.
    Under the proposed rule, you would be required to measure emissions 
of HF, HCl, and PM. You would measure HF and HCl emissions using EPA 
Reference Method 26A, ``Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen 
Emissions from Stationary Sources-Isokinetic Method,'' 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A, or any other alternative method that has been approved by 
the Administrator under 40 CFR 63.7(f) of the general provisions. The 
EPA Reference Method 26, ``Determination of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions 
from Stationary Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, may be used when 
no acid particulate matter (e.g., HF or HCl dissolved in water droplets 
emitted by sources controlled by a wet scrubber) is present. 
Particulate matter emissions would be measured using EPA Reference 
Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions from Stationary 
Sources,'' 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, or any other approved 
alternative method.
    To determine initial compliance with the production-based mass 
emission limits for HF, HCl, and PM, you would calculate the mass 
emissions per unit of production for each test run using the mass 
emission rates of HF, HCl, and PM and the production rate (on a fired-
product basis) measured during your performance test. To determine 
initial compliance with any of the percent reduction emission limits, 
you would calculate the percent reduction for each test run using the 
mass emission rates, measured during your performance test,

[[Page 47902]]

of the specific HAP (HF or HCl) entering and exiting the APCD.
    Prior to your initial performance test, you would be required to 
install the continuous monitoring system (CMS) (e.g., continuous 
parameter monitoring system) equipment to be used to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the operating limits. During your initial 
test, you would use the CMS to establish site-specific operating 
parameter values that represent your operating limits. If you operate a 
DIFF or DLS/FF, you would be required to continuously measure the 
temperature at the inlet to the fabric filter, determine and record the 
average temperatures during each 1-hour test run, and determine the 3-
hour block average temperature. You would be required to ensure that 
lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD is free-flowing at all 
times during the performance test, and you would be required to record 
the feeder setting for the three test runs. If the lime feed rate 
varies, you would be required to determine the average feed rate from 
the three test runs. You would be required to submit analyses and 
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance 
and specifications for bag leak detection systems. Additionally, if you 
operate a DLS/FF, you would be required to continuously measure the 
water injection rate, determine and record the average water injection 
rate values for the three test runs, and determine the 3-hour block 
average water injection rate. If you operate a WS, you would be 
required to continuously measure the scrubber pressure drop, the 
scrubber liquid pH, the scrubber liquid flow rate, and the chemical 
addition rate (if applicable). For each WS parameter, you would be 
required to determine and record the average values for the three test 
runs and the 3-hour block average value.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The proposed standards require that you demonstrate continuous 
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. You would 
be required to follow the requirements in your OM&M plan and document 
conformance with your OM&M plan. You would be required to operate a CMS 
to monitor the operating parameters established during your initial 
performance test as described in the following paragraphs. The CMS 
would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, and you would 
need to have at least three of four equally spaced data values (or at 
least 75 percent if you collect more than four data values per hour) 
per hour (not including startup, shutdown, malfunction, or out-of-
control periods) to have a valid hour of data. You would have to 
operate the CMS at all times when the process is operating. You would 
also have to conduct proper maintenance of the CMS, including 
inspections, calibrations, and validation checks, and maintain an 
inventory of necessary parts for routine repairs of the CMS. Using the 
recorded readings, you would calculate and record the 3-hour block 
average values of each operating parameter. To calculate the average 
for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at least 75 percent of 
the recorded readings for that period (not including startup, shutdown, 
malfunction, or out-of-control periods).
    For DIFF and DLS/FF systems, you would have to continuously 
maintain the 3-hour block average temperature at the fabric filter 
inlet at or below the average temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F), 
established during your performance test. You would have to maintain 
free-flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo and to the APCD at all 
times. If lime is found not to be free flowing via the output of a load 
cell, carrier gas/lime flow indicator, carrier gas pressure drop 
measurement system, or other system, you would have to promptly 
initiate and complete corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. 
You would also have to maintain the feeder setting at or above the 
level established during your performance test and record the feeder 
setting once each shift. You would have to initiate corrective action 
within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete 
corrective actions according to your OM&M plan. You would also have to 
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. In calculating this operating time 
fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no 
corrective action is required, no alarm time would be counted. If 
corrective action is required, each alarm would be counted as a minimum 
of 1 hour, and if you take longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective 
action, the alarm time would be counted as the actual amount of time 
taken to initiate corrective action.
    Additionally, for DLS/FF, you would have to continuously maintain 
the 3-hour block average water injection rate at or above the minimum 
value established during your performance test. For WS, you would have 
to continuously maintain the 3-hour block averages for scrubber 
pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate, and 
chemical addition rate (if applicable) at or above the minimum values 
established during your performance test.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to 
submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and 
notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the 
proposed rule, which may vary depending on whether the affected source 
is new or existing. In addition to the information specified in 40 CFR 
63.9(h)(2)(i), you would be required to include the following in your 
notification of compliance status: (1) The operating limit parameter 
values established for each affected source (with supporting 
documentation) and a description of the procedure used to establish the 
values, and (2) analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating 
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection 
systems.
    We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to 
submit semiannual compliance reports containing statements and 
information concerning emission limitation deviations, out-of-control 
CMS, and periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when actions 
consistent with your approved startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
(SSMP) were taken. In addition, if you undertake an action that is 
inconsistent with your approved SSMP, then you would be required to 
submit a startup, shutdown, and malfunction report within 2 working 
days of starting such action and within 7 working days of ending such 
action.
    We are requiring owners and operators of all affected sources to 
maintain records for at least 5 years from the date of each record. You 
must retain the records onsite for at least the first 2 years but may 
retain the records offsite for the remaining 3 years. You would be 
required to keep a copy of each notification and report, along with 
supporting documentation. You would be required to keep records related 
to the following: (1) Records of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; (2) 
records of performance tests; (3) records to show continuous compliance 
with each emission limitation; (4) records of each bag leak detection 
system alarm, including the time of the alarm, the time corrective 
action was initiated and completed, and a description of the cause of 
the alarm and the corrective action taken; (5) records of each

[[Page 47903]]

operating limit parameter value deviation, including the date, time, 
and duration of the deviation, a description of the cause of the 
deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the deviation 
occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction; (6) 
records of production rate; (7) records for any approved alternative 
monitoring or test procedures; and (8) current copies of your SSMP and 
OM&M plan, including any revisions, with records documenting 
conformance.

III. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the 
Proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    At the current level of control and 1996 production levels, 
nationwide emissions of HAP from the 169 BSCP facilities estimated to 
be major sources are about 5,700 Mg/yr (6,300 tpy). Under the proposed 
rule, it is assumed that DIFF will be installed on 81 tunnel kilns with 
production capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg (10 tph) (that 
currently are not controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS). This would 
result in an estimated reduction in nationwide HAP emissions of 2,500 
Mg/yr (2,800 tpy). We estimated the impacts based on DIFF as the 
control technology because DIFF costs provided a conservative cost 
basis for the economic analyses. Based on available information on wet 
scrubbers, wet scrubbers achieve similar emissions reductions to DIFF, 
while compliance costs may be significantly less than those associated 
with DIFF, depending on the wastewater disposal options available to 
each facility.
    Hydrogen fluoride emissions account for approximately 60 percent of 
the baseline HAP emissions. Hydrogen chloride emissions account for 
approximately 40 percent, with HAP metals comprising less than 1 
percent of the baseline HAP emissions. Estimated nationwide emissions 
of HF, HCl, and HAP metals from existing major source BSCP facilities 
at the current level of control are 3,400 Mg/yr (3,700 tpy), 2,300 Mg/
yr (2,500 tpy), and 62 Mg/yr (68 tpy), respectively. Implementing the 
rule as proposed would reduce nationwide HF emissions from existing 
tunnel kilns by about 1,500 Mg/yr (1,700 tpy), and HCl would be reduced 
by 1,000 Mg/yr (1,100 tpy). Emissions of HAP metals would be reduced by 
24 Mg/yr (27 tpy). Implementing the rule as proposed also would reduce 
PM and SO2 emissions by 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy) and 3,400 
Mg/yr (3,800 tpy), respectively.
    To project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed that 
three large model tunnel kilns (each with a 15 tph capacity), equipped 
with DIFF, would begin operation at the beginning of the first year 
following promulgation of the rule as proposed. We estimate that by 
implementing the rule as proposed, HF emissions from new sources would 
be reduced by 96 Mg/yr (106 tpy), HCl emissions would be reduced by 65 
Mg/yr (72 tpy), and HAP metals emissions would be reduced by 1.6 Mg/yr 
(1.8 tpy). We also estimate that PM and SO2 emissions from 
the new kilns would be reduced by 88 Mg/yr (97 tpy) and 230 Mg/yr (250 
tpy), respectively.
    Secondary air impacts associated with the proposed BSCP rule are 
direct impacts that result from the operation of any new or additional 
APCD. The generation of electricity required to operate the APCD on new 
and existing kilns will result in 32 tpy of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions in the first year following promulgation of 
the rule as proposed. The electricity was assumed to be generated by 
natural gas-fired turbines.

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

    Because compliance with the proposed rule is based on the use of 
DIFF, no water pollution impacts are estimated. However, facilities 
will have the option of using wet scrubbers. Facilities that use wet 
scrubbers would have several options for disposing of wastewater, 
including: (1) Using an evaporator and disposing of solid waste, (2) 
using scrubber blowdown water as process water (this option is 
currently being studied within the industry and may or may not be 
possible at all brick plants), and (3) disposing of scrubber blowdown 
directly to a sewer system (this option is available to some 
facilities). Because of the various scenarios and considerable 
uncertainty, we did not attempt to estimate overall wastewater impacts. 
Based on available information, each scrubber-controlled kiln could 
generate as little as zero or as much as about 5 million gallons per 
year of waste water (based on a 10 gallon per minute scrubber blowdown, 
which is the maximum permitted amount in the industry). The solid waste 
impacts discussed below may be overstated since it is likely that some 
facilities will use wet scrubbers. However, wet scrubbers may be 
equipped with spray dryers to eliminate wastewater (and create solid 
waste).
    The solid waste disposal impacts that result from the use of DIFF 
include the disposal of the spent lime (or other sorbent) that is 
injected into the kiln exhaust stream and subsequently captured by a 
fabric filter. We calculated the solid waste by taking the difference 
between the amount of lime injected into the system and the amount of 
reacted lime, and adding the amount of reaction products. 
Stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 2.0 have been reported for the DIFF and 
DLS/FF in use in the brick manufacturing industry. The average 
stoichiometric ratio of 1.35 was used in this analysis. Implementing 
the rule as proposed would result in an increase in solid waste by 
28,600 Mg/yr (31,500 tpy).
    To project solid waste impacts for new sources, we assumed that 
three large model tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin 
operation at the beginning of the first year following promulgation of 
the rule as proposed. We estimate that implementing the rule as 
proposed would result in the generation of 1,230 Mg/yr (1,360 tpy) of 
solid waste from new sources.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed to operate the 
DIFF. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by the size of the 
fan needed in the APCD. We estimated the increase in electricity 
consumption that would result from implementation of the rule as 
proposed to be 254 terajoules per year (242 billion British thermal 
units (Btu) per year).
    To project energy impacts for new sources, we assumed that three 
large model tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin operation at 
the beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as 
proposed. We estimate the increase in energy consumption that would 
result from implementation of the rule as proposed to be 10.2 
terajoules per year (9.7 billion Btu per year) for new sources.

D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?

    Reducing HAP emissions under the proposed rule would lower 
occupational HAP exposure levels. The operation of APCD may increase 
occupational noise levels in the facilities that do not control HAP 
emissions.
    The HAP controls that are likely to be installed under the proposed 
rule would provide control of SO2 and PM emissions from BSCP 
kilns. We estimate that SO2 emissions from existing kilns 
would be reduced by 3,400 Mg/yr (3,800 tpy) and PM emissions from 
existing kilns would be reduced by 1,300 Mg/yr (1,400 tpy). We also 
estimate that SO2 and PM emissions from projected new kilns 
would be reduced by 230 Mg/yr

[[Page 47904]]

(250 tpy) and 88 Mg/yr (97 tpy), respectively.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    For existing sources, nationwide total capital costs to implement 
the rule as proposed are estimated at $85 million, with total 
annualized costs of $36 million. The capital costs include the purchase 
and installation of DIFF and monitoring equipment on 81 existing tunnel 
kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 
tph). The annualized costs include annualized capital costs of the 
control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, 
emission testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs 
associated with installing and operating these 81 DIFF.
    To project costs for new sources, we assumed that three large model 
tunnel kilns, equipped with DIFF, would begin operation at the 
beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as 
proposed. We estimate the capital costs associated with implementation 
of the rule as proposed to be $3.4 million for these three new sources. 
The capital cost of a DIFF corresponds to about 6 percent of the cost 
of a typical new plant, including a new mill room and kiln (a typical 
plant expansion would likely include a new mill room and kiln, but may 
not include other equipment such as raw material processing equipment). 
We estimate the annualized costs associated with implementation of the 
rule as proposed to be $1.41 million per year for new sources in the 
first year following promulgation of the rule as proposed.
    We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are 
based on procedures from EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-
006, January 1990) and cost information provided by the BSCP industry. 
We estimated costs by developing model process units that correspond to 
the various sizes of kilns found at BSCP manufacturing facilities and 
assigning the model process units to each facility based on the kiln 
sizes at each facility. The facility costs were summed to determine 
total industry costs. Additional information on the model process units 
and cost estimates is included in docket A-99-30.

F. How Can We Reduce the Cost of the Proposed Rule?

    As described elsewhere in this preamble, we have made every effort 
in developing the proposal to minimize the cost to the regulated 
community and allow maximum flexibility in compliance options 
consistent with our statutory obligations. However, we recognize that 
the proposal may still require some facilities to take costly steps to 
further control emissions even though their emissions may not result in 
exposures which could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk 
greater than one in one million or which exceed thresholds determined 
to provide an ample margin of safety for protecting public health and 
the environment from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are, 
therefore, specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further 
ways to structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which 
pose significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on 
facilities that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
    In connection with another rulemaking, representatives of the 
plywood and composite wood products industry provided EPA with 
descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed could be used to 
implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. The docket for the 
plywood and composite wood products rule contains ``white papers'' 
prepared by that industry that outline their proposed approaches (See 
Docket Number A-98-44.) We welcome public comment on these approaches. 
We believe that two of the three suggested approaches warrant further 
consideration. We believe they could be used to focus regulatory 
controls on facilities with significant risks and avoid the imposition 
of high costs on facilities that pose little risk to public health or 
the environment. One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for 
threshold pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA 
section 112(d)(4); the other approach, subcategorization and delisting, 
would be implemented under the authority of CAA sections 112(c)(1) and 
112(c)(9). The EPA requests comment on the technical and legal 
viability of these approaches, as well as any modifications to these 
approaches that commenters may wish to suggest. The maximum achievable 
control technology, or MACT, program outlined in CAA section 112(d) is 
intended to reduce emissions of HAP through the application of MACT to 
major sources of toxic air pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is intended to 
allow EPA to avoid setting MACT standards for categories or 
subcategories of sources that pose little risk to public health and the 
environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the proposals 
described here appropriately rely on these provisions of CAA section 
112. While both approaches focus on assessing the inhalation exposures 
of HAP emitted by a source, EPA specifically requests comment on the 
appropriateness and necessity of extending these approaches to account 
for non-inhalation exposures of certain HAP which may deposit from the 
atmosphere after being emitted into the air or to account for adverse 
environmental impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment 
noted in this section, we are also interested in any information or 
comment concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost 
impacts, compliance assurance, legal authority, and implementation 
relevant to the approaches. We also request comment on appropriate 
practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions 
remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We 
will evaluate all comments before determining whether either of the two 
approaches will be included in the final rule.
Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 112(d)(4) 
of the CAA
    The first approach is an ``applicability cutoff'' for threshold 
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 
112(d)(4). A ``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a 
concentration or dose below which adverse effects are not expected to 
occur over a lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section 
112(d)(4) allows EPA to consider the threshold level, with an ample 
margin of safety, when establishing emissions standards. Specifically, 
section 112(d)(4) allows EPA to establish emission standards that are 
not based upon the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) 
specified under section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a health 
threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent 
than MACT. Furthermore, EPA has interpreted 112(d)(4) to allow us to 
avoid further regulation of categories of sources that emit only 
threshold pollutants, if those emissions result in ambient levels that 
do not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin of safety.\1\ 
Industry's suggested approach interprets this provision to allow us to 
exempt individual facilities that can demonstrate that their emissions 
will not result in air concentrations above the threshold levels, with 
an ample margin of safety, even if the category is otherwise subject to 
MACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 18754, 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper 
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP).

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

[[Page 47905]]

    For facilities to avoid being subject to the MACT standard, EPA 
would have to determine that a health effects threshold exists for each 
pollutant emitted by the brick and structural clay products sources at 
the facility and that the ambient impacts of those emissions do not 
exceed the threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety. The common 
approach for evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air 
pollutant is to calculate a ``hazard quotient'' by dividing the 
pollutant's inhalation exposure concentration (often assumed to be 
equivalent to its estimated concentration in air at a location where 
people could be exposed) by the pollutant's inhalation Reference 
Concentration (RfC). An RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty 
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous inhalation 
exposure that, over a lifetime, likely would not result in the 
occurrence of adverse health effects in humans, including sensitive 
individuals. The EPA typically establishes an RfC by applying 
uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect derived from the 
lowest- or no-observed-adverse-effect level of a pollutant.\2\ A hazard 
quotient less than one means that the exposure concentration of the 
pollutant is less than the RfC. A hazard quotient greater than one 
means the exposure concentration of the pollutant is greater than the 
RfC. For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan 
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). When a pollutant does not 
have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA 
would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the 
availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of 
action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative 
source such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference 
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the past, EPA routinely treated carcinogens as non-threshold 
pollutants. The EPA recognizes that advances in risk assessment science 
and policy may affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and 
non-threshold HAP. The EPA's draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 
Assessment \3\ suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-
response relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible 
that dose-response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a 
dose greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. 
It is possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by 
this source category would determine that one or more of the 
carcinogens in the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a 
carcinogen that exhibits a non-linear dose-response relationship but 
does not have a threshold. The EPA requests comment on how we should 
consider the state of the science as it relates to legislative intent 
when making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA 
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a 
carcinogenic HAP that could be considered insignificant enough to allow 
a facility to use the approaches discussed in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' 
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As suggested above, in order for EPA to establish an applicability 
cutoff under section 112(d)(4), EPA would need to define ambient air 
exposure concentration limits for the threshold pollutants involved. 
There are several factors to consider when establishing such 
concentrations. First, we would need to ensure that the concentrations 
that would be established would protect public health with an ample 
margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach EPA commonly uses 
when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to 
calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient. Further, current EPA 
guidance suggests that when exposures to mixtures of pollutants are 
being evaluated, the risk assessor should calculate a hazard index by 
summing the individual hazard quotients for those pollutants in the 
mixture that affect the same target organ or system by the same 
mechanism \4\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical 
Panel'', EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem_mix/chem_mix_08_2001.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As suggested by CAA legislative history, we would need to ensure 
that the analysis considers the total ambient air concentrations of all 
the emitted HAP to which the public is exposed \5\. Our goal would thus 
be to establish a hazard index limit for the mixture of pollutants from 
a source which would recognize the potential for other sources to 
contribute to exposure. Consistent with this goal, there are at least 
several options for establishing a hazard index limit for the section 
112(d)(4) analysis. One option is to allow the hazard index posed by 
all threshold HAP emitted by brick and structural clay products sources 
at the facility to be no greater than one. This approach assumes that 
no additional threshold HAP exposures would be anticipated from other 
sources in the vicinity or through other routes of exposure (i.e., 
through ingestion).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990), 
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'') at 
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A second option is to adopt an approach similar to that used by 
EPA's Office of Water (OW) in establishing drinking water standards. 
Using this approach, we would allow that up to a certain percentage of 
an individual's total exposure to all threshold HAP could be 
contributed by emissions from brick and structural clay products 
sources at the facility, assuming that the rest of the individual's 
exposure results from other sources and through other media. In the 
absence of adequate exposure data, the drinking water program usually 
assumes that drinking water can account for up to 20 percent of an 
individual's exposure to an individual pollutant, assuming that the 
remaining 80 percent of an individual's exposure comes from other 
sources, such as diet \6\. The adaptation of this approach for the 
purposes of conducting an analysis to support a section 112(d)(4) 
determination is to assume that an individual's exposure to the mixture 
of threshold HAP emitted from the brick and structural clay products 
sources at a facility accounts for 20 percent of an individual's total 
exposure to those HAP and that other sources account for the remaining 
80 percent of the exposure. This means that exposures to the mixture of 
HAP from brick and structural clay products sources would not be 
allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of 0.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria 
for the Protection of Human Health (2000)'', Technical Support 
Document Volume 1: Risk Assessment''. EPA-822-B-00-005. Office of 
Science and Technology, Office of Water, USEPA, October 2000. http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/humanhealth/method/complete.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature 
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of 
HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used 
to estimate the exposures to HAP from non-brick and structural clay 
products sources in the vicinity of an individual facility. For 
example, the EPA's National-scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) \7\ and

[[Page 47906]]

ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles \8\ contain information about background 
concentrations of some HAP in the atmosphere and other media. The 
combined exposures from brick and structural clay products sources and 
from other sources (as determined from the literature or studies) would 
then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of one. The EPA 
requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index 
limit at one for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata
    \8\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative to the third option, a fourth option is to allow 
facilities to estimate or measure their own facility-specific 
background HAP concentrations for use in their analysis. With regard to 
the third and fourth options, the EPA requests comment on how these 
analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA requests comment on how 
the analyses should take into account background exposure levels from 
air, water, food and soil encountered by the individuals exposed to 
brick and structural clay products emissions. In addition, we request 
comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in 
exposures due to a new or increased use of a HAP, or the effect of 
other nearby sources that release HAP. EPA requests comment on the 
feasibility and scientific validity of each of these or other 
approaches.
    Finally, EPA requests comment on how we should implement the 
section 112(d)(4) applicability cutoffs, including appropriate 
mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual facilities. For example, 
would the Title V permit process provide an appropriate mechanism? 
Establishing that a facility meets the cutoffs established under 
section 112(d)(4) will necessarily involve combining estimates of 
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. 
The EPA envisions that we would promote a tiered analytical approach 
for these determinations. A tiered analysis involves making successive 
refinements in modeling methodologies and input data to derive 
successively less conservative, more realistic estimates of pollutant 
concentrations in air and estimates of risk. As a first tier of 
analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple look-up tables based on 
the results of air dispersion modeling conducted using conservative 
input assumptions. By specifying a limited number of input parameters, 
such as stack height, distance to property line, and emission rate, a 
facility could use these look-up tables to determine easily whether the 
emissions from their sources might cause a hazard index limit to be 
exceeded. A facility that does not pass this initial conservative 
screening analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific but 
more resource-intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling 
procedures, in an attempt to demonstrate that their facility does not 
exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's guidance could provide the 
basis for conducting such a tiered analysis.\9\ The EPA requests 
comment on methods for constructing and implementing a tiered 
analytical approach for determining applicability of the section 
112(d)(4) criterion to specific brick and structural clay products 
sources. It is also possible that ambient monitoring data could be used 
to supplement or supplant the tiered modeling approach described above, 
although it is envisioned that the appropriate monitoring to support 
such a determination could be extensive. The EPA requests comment on 
the appropriate use of monitoring in the determinations described 
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to 
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E. 
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
    EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of 
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to 
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a 
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT 
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: 
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``no source in the 
category * * * emits [carcinogenic] air pollutants in quantities which 
may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one million to 
the individual in the population who is most exposed to emissions of 
such pollutants from the source'; (2) in the case of pollutants that 
cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``emissions from no source 
in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a level which is adequate 
to protect public health with an ample margin of safety''; and (3) in 
the case of pollutants that cause adverse environmental effects, that 
``no adverse environmental effect will result from emissions from any 
source.''
    Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper 
prepared by representatives of the plywood and composite wood products 
industry (see Docket Number A-98-44), EPA is considering whether it 
would be possible to establish a subcategory of facilities within the 
larger brick and structural clay products industry category that would 
meet the risk-based criteria for delisting. Since each facility in such 
a subcategory would be a low-risk facility (i.e., if each met these 
criteria), the subcategory could be delisted in accordance with section 
112(c)(9), thereby limiting the costs and impacts of the proposed MACT 
rule to only those facilities that do not qualify for subcategorization 
and delisting. Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted 
subcategory would be responsible for providing all data required to 
determine whether they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that 
could not demonstrate that they are eligible to be included in the low-
risk subcategory would be subject to MACT and possible future residual 
risk standards. Although EPA currently is not convinced that 
subcategorization based on risk is possible within the statutory 
constraints of the CAA, EPA solicits comment on implementing a risk-
based approach for establishing subcategories of brick and structural 
clay products facilities.
    Another approach would be to define a subcategory of facilities 
within the brick and structural clay products source category based 
upon technological differences, such as differences in production rate, 
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions 
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. 
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish brick and structural 
clay products subcategories based on these, or other, source 
characteristics. If it could then be determined that each source in 
this technologically-defined subcategory presents a low risk to the 
surrounding community, the subcategory could then be delisted in 
accordance with 112(c)(9). The EPA requests comment on the concept of 
identifying technologically-based subcategories that may include only 
low-risk facilities within the brick and structural caly products 
source category.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We conducted a detailed economic impact analysis to determine the 
market- and industry-level impacts associated with the proposed rule. 
The compliance costs of today's proposed rule are expected to increase 
the price of brick and reduce their domestic production and 
consumption. We project the price of brick to increase by

[[Page 47907]]

just less than 2 percent and project no change in price for structural 
clay products. Domestic production of brick is expected to decline by 
close to 2 percent. In addition, foreign brick imports are estimated to 
increase while exports decrease, both by just under 2 percent. Since 
there is no expected change in the price of structural clay products, 
we predict no change in domestic production or foreign imports of 
structural clay products.
    In terms of industry impacts, the brick producers are projected to 
experience a decrease in operating profits of about 18 percent, which 
reflects the compliance costs associated with brick production and the 
resulting reductions in revenues due to the increase in the price of 
brick and the reduced quantity purchased. Through the market impacts 
described above, the proposed rule would create both positive and 
negative financial impacts on facilities within the BSCP manufacturing 
industry. The majority of facilities, almost 68 percent, are expected 
to experience profit increases with the proposed rule; however, there 
are some facilities projected to lose profits (about 28 percent). 
Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates that of the 189 
BSCP manufacturing facilities, two brick facilities are at risk of 
closure because of the proposed rule, while none of the structural clay 
products facilities are at risk to close.
    Based on the market analysis, the annual social costs of the 
proposed rule are projected to be $34.5 million. This differs from the 
annual engineering costs of the proposed rule because the social costs 
account for producer and consumer behavior. These social costs are 
distributed across the many consumers and producers of brick. Since 
there are no price changes occurring in the structural clay products 
market, the social costs of the proposed rule are confined to the brick 
industry. The consumers of brick are expected to incur the $18.9 
million in costs associated with the proposed rule, with domestic 
consumers bearing $18.8 million and foreign consumers bearing $0.1 
million. Brick producers, in aggregate, are expected to bear the 
remaining $15.6 million annually in costs. Domestic producers incur 
$15.65 million while foreign producers gain $0.05 million annually.
    We estimate that 15 new kilns will be built during the 5 years 
after promulgation of the rule as proposed. The total compliance costs 
associated with these kilns are projected to be less than 0.5 percent 
of the industry's value of shipments. The economic impact analysis 
estimated the impact of the proposed rule on these new sources through 
a sensitivity analysis. According to that analysis, it is projected 
that anywhere from three to six of these new kilns will be delayed in 
coming on-line in the BSCP manufacturing industry due to the proposed 
rule. Additional information is included in the economic impact 
analysis report located in docket A-99-30.

IV. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Brick and 
Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

A. How Did We Select the Emission Sources and Pollutants That Will Be 
Regulated?

    In the BSCP manufacturing industry, the most significant sources of 
HAP emissions are kilns, including continuous (tunnel and roller) kilns 
and periodic kilns. For this reason, the proposed rule covers both 
existing and new kilns at major source BSCP manufacturing facilities 
which meet the applicability criteria. Other sources of HAP emissions 
at BSCP manufacturing facilities are the raw material processing and 
handling equipment.
    At the temperatures encountered in BSCP kilns, naturally occurring 
fluorides and chlorides found in the raw clays and shales that are used 
as raw materials are released to the atmosphere as HF and HCl. We 
estimate that most BSCP manufacturing facilities emit more than 9.07 
Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HF and, therefore, are major sources as defined by 
the CAA. In addition, we estimate that many facilities are also major 
sources of HCl emissions. In addition to HF and HCl, all of the HAP 
metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 
manganese, mercury (in particulate form), nickel, and selenium) listed 
in section 112(b) of the CAA have been detected in brick kiln exhaust. 
The HAP metals may emanate from trace quantities of metals found in raw 
materials, metallic body additives and surface coatings commonly used 
in the industry, or from the fuels fired in the kilns. Therefore, we 
propose to regulate HF, HCl, and HAP metals (using PM as a surrogate 
for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form) emissions from 
BSCP kilns.
    Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metals that 
are emitted in particulate form because HAP metals are always expected 
to be present in PM from BSCP kilns, and the same control mechanisms 
that remove PM from the exhaust stream will also remove nonvolatile and 
semi-volatile HAP metals. Available data show that HAP metals 
constitute between 0.16 percent and 4.5 percent of PM emissions from 
BSCP kilns. The use of PM as a surrogate pollutant for HAP metals 
reduces the costs associated with compliance testing and monitoring 
because such testing and monitoring are necessary only for one PM 
emission limit, rather than for numerous emission limits for individual 
HAP metals.

B. How Did We Determine Subcategories?

    Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows EPA to promulgate emission 
standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through 
subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission 
sources within a source category if differences in emissions 
characteristics, processes, APCD viability, or opportunities for 
pollution prevention exist within the source category. Upon initial 
consideration of the available information on the BSCP manufacturing 
industry, we determined that separate subcategories for periodic kilns 
and tunnel kilns were warranted for several reasons. First, periodic 
kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with lower production on an hourly 
basis, as well as accounting for only about 4 percent of total BSCP 
industry production). Second, periodic kilns are operated in batch 
cycles, whereas tunnel kilns operate continuously. Finally, to our 
knowledge, periodic kilns have not successfully been controlled using 
any of the currently available APCD, as have tunnel kilns, or through 
the use of low-HAP fuels or changes in raw materials or processes.
    Following this initial subcategorization, we examined the potential 
for additional subcategories for tunnel kilns, including 
subcategorization based on kiln fuel and kiln size. We determined that 
because the HAP emissions from tunnel kilns primarily result from the 
raw materials rather than the kiln fuel, subcategorization by kiln fuel 
is not appropriate for BSCP tunnel kilns. We then considered 
subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on kiln size and, for the 
reasons discussed below, decided to propose two subcategories based on 
size.
    A review of the available information regarding tunnel kilns showed 
that DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS, which we believe represent the best 
controls, generally are installed on kilns with design capacities 
greater than approximately 10 tph of fired product. However, in the 
absence of subcategorization of tunnel kilns based on size, the MACT 
floor for all existing tunnel kilns would be the level of control 
provided by DLA for all

[[Page 47908]]

pollutants. Specifically, the tunnel kiln subcategory (all tunnel 
kilns) includes 296 tunnel kilns that are located at major sources of 
HAP. The best-controlled 12 percent of these sources include 4 DIFF-
controlled, 4 DLS/FF-controlled, 2 WS-controlled, 11 DLA-controlled and 
15 uncontrolled kilns. The level of control that corresponds to the 
mean of the best-controlled 12 percent of these kilns is the 94th 
percentile level of control, which corresponds to the level of control 
provided by a DLA. As previously mentioned, we have several concerns 
about the long-term effectiveness of the DLA control technology and the 
degree to which we can assure continuous compliance for DLA-controlled 
kilns. First, long-term test data that demonstrate performance over the 
life of the sorbent are not available. This is important for these 
systems because the sorbent (limestone) is not continuously replaced 
with new sorbent, and we expect the performance of the systems to 
decrease as the sorbent is re-used and the ability of the sorbent to 
adsorb HF and HCl decreases. Second, representatives of DLA 
manufacturers and facilities that operate DLA have stated that not all 
limestone can effectively be used as a sorbent in a DLA. Because of 
these two issues, we have been unable to identify any type of parameter 
monitoring that could be used to assure continuous compliance. If 
parameter monitoring cannot be used, some type of CEMS would be 
required to assure continuous compliance with HF and HCl emission 
limits if DLA were considered as MACT control. The only potential 
option that we have identified for assuring continuous compliance is 
the installation and continuous operation of Fourier transform infrared 
spectroscopy (FTIR) monitoring systems. The costs associated with FTIR 
systems are considerable. Finally, DLA do not provide a mechanism for 
PM (and, therefore, metal HAP) removal and may actually create PM in 
some instances. For all of these reasons, we believe that DLA or 
equivalent controls would not represent an appropriate level of MACT 
control for BSCP kilns.
    We also note that a rule that did not subcategorize tunnel kilns 
based on size would have considerable impacts on small businesses. In 
the absence of size-based subcategories, every existing tunnel kiln 
that is located at a major source of HAP would be required to install a 
DLA or equivalent control. We estimate that 151 of the 189 BSCP 
facilities, including 70 of 93 small business-owned facilities, would 
have to install at least one DLA or other equivalent APCD. In addition, 
two small business-owned BSCP facilities are estimated to incur 
monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting costs only. A 
total of 261 tunnel kilns, including 109 small business-owned kilns, 
would require the addition of controls to meet the requirements of a 
rule based on this approach. The 21 tunnel kilns that are currently 
equipped with DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, and DLA controls are estimated to incur 
only monitoring, testing, and recordkeeping and reporting costs. 
Fourteen tunnel kilns that duct all of the kiln exhaust to a sawdust 
dryer would not require controls. We estimate the total annualized cost 
to industry, under a regulatory approach that did not include size-
based subcategories, to be $74 million, and the annualized cost to 
small business-owned facilities to be about $29 million.
    We, therefore, concluded that subcategorizing tunnel kilns based on 
size would enable us to ease the burden on small businesses while 
fulfilling our obligations under the CAA and achieving substantial 
emissions reductions. Our analysis focused on subcategorization 
scenarios under which the MACT floor (for all pollutants) would be 
control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control for a subset of 
tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than a specific 
size. The MACT floor for all pollutants for the remaining subset of 
kilns (those with capacities less than the specific size) would be ``no 
emissions reductions.'' To help select a design capacity upon which to 
base the subcategories, we examined the design capacities of the kilns 
controlled with a DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS. Our initial review of the 
available information showed that the smallest kiln controlled with a 
DIFF, DLS/FF, or WS had a design capacity of about 11 tph of fired 
product. We then examined the capacities of kilns owned by small and 
large businesses, which revealed a general trend of small businesses 
operating smaller kilns than large businesses. This trend was most 
pronounced at and below a capacity of about 10 tph. Using this 
information, we selected a design capacity of 10 tph as the basis for 
subcategorization. Under this scenario, 66 of the 77 small businesses 
(82 of 93 small business-owned facilities) would incur no costs for 
existing operations, and the total estimated cost to small businesses 
would be $7.2 million, compared to $29 million under the scenario that 
does not include size-based subcategories. Since the initial review, we 
have identified a new DIFF-controlled kiln with a design capacity just 
under 10 tph. Although this new controlled kiln is not included in the 
MACT floor calculations for existing sources (under lowest achievable 
emission rate (LAER) provisions in the CAA), the fact that it is 
controlled with a DIFF shows that control with a DIFF is feasible for 
similar-size kilns.
    During the development of the proposed rule, representatives of the 
brick industry pointed out that impacts on small businesses (and the 
industry as a whole) could be further reduced by increasing the kiln 
design capacity upon which subcategories would be based to 13.3 tph. 
Upon examination of this suggestion, we determined that 13.3 tph is the 
highest capacity that would maintain DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent 
control as the MACT floor. Subcategories based on a capacity of 13.3 
tph minimize economic impacts on small and large businesses, but also 
minimize the HAP emissions reductions that would be achieved because 
the MACT controls would apply to fewer sources than a lower size 
cutoff. This suggestion from the brick industry representatives 
prompted us to examine the situation from the opposite perspective. 
Specifically, we determined a kiln design capacity that would maximize 
HAP emissions reductions by maximizing the number of sources that would 
be subject to the MACT controls. Based on the available information, 
the capacity that maximizes HAP emissions reductions is 7 tph. However, 
the small business impacts of subcategorization based on a 7 tph design 
capacity would be considerable. Table 2 of this preamble shows a 
summary of the estimated HAP emissions reductions and cost impacts for 
the various size-based subcategories that we examined.

[[Page 47909]]



                            Table 2.--Impacts of Potential Tunnel Kiln Subcategories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Total
                                                               Number of      Total        annual
                                                  Number of     impacted      annual       small         HAP
              Design capacity \a\                  impacted      small      cost,  $ x    business    reduction
                                                    facil.      business      10\6\      cost  $ x      (tpy)
                                                                 facil.                    10\6\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None \b\.......................................          160           72         74.1         29.4        4,200
7 tph..........................................           97           27         59.4         15.7        4,358
10 tph.........................................           59           11         35.7         7.17        2,827
13.3 tph.......................................           29            3         16.0         1.42       1,378
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Design capacity at or above which existing tunnel kilns would be subject to the requirements of the proposed
  rule.
\b\ With no design capacity-based subcategories, the MACT floor would be a DLA, which is a less effective HAP
  control device. All existing tunnel kilns would be required to install DLA or equivalent controls under this
  scenario.

    As shown in Table 2 of this preamble, while subcategorization based 
on a 7 tph design capacity provides the highest level of emissions 
reductions and subcategorization based on a 13.3 tph design capacity 
results in the lowest cost impacts, subcategorization based on a 10 tph 
design capacity provides significant environmental benefits while 
reducing the cost impacts on small businesses.
    As a result of the analysis of possible subcategorization levels 
presented above, we are proposing subcategorization of existing tunnel 
kilns based on a 10 tph design capacity, which we believe is 
reasonable. We remain interested in information that will further 
inform our analysis and solicit comment on the appropriate design 
capacity-based subcategorization level. We are specifically interested 
in the following:
    (1) Information regarding the applicability of DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or 
equivalent control to kilns below 13 tph design capacity;
    (2) Information about the health risks posed by emissions from 
kilns below 13 tph design capacity; and
    (3) Any other information regarding the feasibility, costs, and 
benefits of implementing a particular subcategorization level.

C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for Existing Sources?

    The CAA specifies that MACT standards be at least as stringent as 
the floor for the sources in the relevant source category or 
subcategory. It further specifies that we set standards for existing 
sources that are no less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for 
which the Administrator has emissions information) where there are 30 
or more sources in the category or subcategory. Our interpretation of 
the ``average emission limitation'' is that it is a measure of central 
tendency, such as the arithmetic average or the mean. If the mean is 
used when there are at least 30 sources, then the emission level 
achievable by the source and its APCD that is at the bottom of the top 
6 percent of the best-performing sources (i.e., the 94th percentile) 
represents the MACT floor control level. The MACT floors for each 
subcategory are based on this interpretation.
    After identifying the MACT floors for existing sources, we also 
consider control options more stringent than the MACT floor levels. The 
selected option may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the 
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's 
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the 
maximum degree of emissions reductions without imposing unreasonable 
impacts (see section 112(d)(2) of the CAA).
1. Existing Periodic Kilns
    No existing periodic kiln is equipped with an APCD that has been 
demonstrated to control HAP emissions. In addition to APCD, we 
considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-HAP fuels 
or raw materials. However, because available data do not show increased 
HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel type is not 
appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP raw material use is 
not a viable MACT option because all facilities use local clays and 
shales to produce BSCP, and particular clays and shales are integral to 
those products. Changes in raw materials could change the end products. 
The procurement of low-HAP raw materials as a control measure is not 
done in the BSCP industry. After considering all of the MACT options, 
we determined that the MACT floor for existing periodic kilns is ``no 
emissions reductions,'' because we did not identify any means by which 
existing periodic kilns are currently reducing emissions. Because no 
APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe 
that low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no 
beyond-the-floor options for existing periodic kilns. Therefore, we 
have determined that the control level for existing periodic kilns 
should be ``no emissions reductions.''
2. Existing Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Less Than 10 TPH
    As discussed earlier, tunnel kilns may have more than one process 
stream, including the kiln exhaust process stream and the kiln/sawdust 
dryer exhaust process stream.
    a. Kiln Exhaust Process Stream. For tunnel kilns with design 
capacities less than 10 tph of fired product, the available data show 
that three of the 199 kilns (1.5 percent) that are included in this 
subcategory are equipped with DLA. The best-controlled 12 percent of 
these kilns includes the three DLA-controlled kilns and 21 uncontrolled 
kilns. The 94th percentile level of control, or the mean of the best-
controlled 12 percent, is ``no emissions reductions.'' In addition to 
APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-
HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data do not show 
increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel 
type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP raw 
material use is not a viable MACT option because all facilities use 
local clays and shales to produce BSCP, and such local materials are 
integral to the end products that are manufactured. The procurement of 
low-HAP raw materials as a control measure is not done in the BSCP 
industry. Therefore, the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control 
are ``no emissions reductions,'' because we did not identify any means 
by which tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph are 
currently reducing emissions from their kiln exhaust process streams 
that is sufficient to constitute a MACT floor.

[[Page 47910]]

    We considered beyond-the-floor controls for kiln exhaust process 
streams from existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 
tph. For these analyses, the costs of installing and operating DIFF on 
existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph, along 
with the associated emissions reductions and other impacts, were 
assessed. After analyzing all of the impacts of retrofitting the kiln 
exhaust process stream from each of 189 existing BSCP tunnel kilns (10 
of the 199 kilns in the subcategory duct all kiln exhaust to a sawdust 
dryer and do not include a kiln exhaust process stream) with a design 
capacity less than 10 tph with a DIFF to control HAP emissions, we 
concluded that setting a standard reflecting this beyond-the-floor 
approach would be unreasonable at this time. Our analysis included an 
estimate of emissions reductions that would be achieved by this 
approach, secondary air impacts, non-air quality impacts, and cost 
impacts on the entire BSCP industry and on small businesses. Primary 
HAP air pollution impacts of the beyond-the-floor approach consist of 
the reduction of HF, HCl, and HAP metals emissions, which would be 
substantial. Specifically, the beyond-the-floor approach would reduce 
total HAP emissions from existing BSCP tunnel kilns with capacities 
less than 10 tph by 2,949 tpy, or 98.0 percent, from a baseline HAP 
emission level of 3,011 tpy. Particulate matter emissions reductions 
(PM is used as a surrogate for HAP metals), and co-control of 
SO2 emissions (from the baseline level) also would result 
from the beyond-the-floor approach. The estimated baseline emissions 
and emissions reductions for the beyond-the-floor approach for tunnel 
kilns with capacities less than 10 tph are summarized in Table 3 of 
this preamble. Table 4 of this preamble shows a summary of the results 
of our evaluations of secondary air, solid waste, energy, and cost 
impacts for this approach. Using the emissions reductions estimates 
shown in Table 3 of this preamble and the beyond-the-floor cost 
presented in Table 4 of this preamble, the nationwide cost 
effectiveness of requiring tunnel kilns with capacities less than 10 
tph to install DIFF controls is about $22,000 per ton of HAP removed. 
In addition, the costs of the beyond-the-floor approach are 
significantly higher than those of the floor level of control. 
Specifically, the cost of the beyond-the-floor approach is estimated to 
be $101 million for the BSCP industry, compared to $36 million under 
the floor approach. The cost of the beyond-the-floor approach for small 
businesses is estimated to be $39 million, compared to an estimated $7 
million under the floor approach.

  Table 3.--Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Beyond-the-
Floor Control of BSCP Tunnel Kilns With Design Capabilities Less Than 10
                                   TPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Baseline     Emissions
            Pollutant              emissions,   reductions,    Percent
                                      tpy           tpy       reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF..............................        1,787       1,766             99
HCl.............................        1,192       1,152             97
HAP metals......................           32          31.4           98
Total HAP.......................        3,011       2,949             98
PM..............................        1,688       1,651             98
SO2.............................        8,277       4,080             49
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4.--Summary of Secondary Air, Solid Waste, Energy, and Cost
  Impacts for Beyond-the-Floor Control of BSCP Tunnel Kilns With Design
                      Capabilities Less Than 10 TPH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Beyond-the-floor
        Type of impact                impact              Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air: NOX............  55 tpy NOX         Based on electricity
                                 increase.          provided by gas
                                                    turbines.
Solid waste...................  34,900 tpy.......  Assumes facilities
                                                    must dispose of all
                                                    waste lime as solid
                                                    waste.
Energy........................  423,000 MMBtu/yr
Cost..........................  $65 million......  Total cost of the
                                                    proposed rule would
                                                    be $101 million.
Small business cost...........  $33 million (95    Total cost to small
                                 kilns at 62        businesses would be
                                 plants).           $39 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the aforementioned analyses, we determined that the 
benefits of requiring controls for the kiln exhaust process streams 
from existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph do 
not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not requiring 
beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. Based on 
these considerations, we have decided that the control level for the 
kiln exhaust process stream from existing tunnel kilns with design 
capacities less than 10 tph should be ``no emissions reductions.''
    b. Kiln/Sawdust Dryer Exhaust Process Stream. None of the kiln/
sawdust dryer exhaust process streams from existing tunnel kilns with 
design capacities less than 10 tph are equipped with APCD. Nor are such 
kilns reducing emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process 
streams through the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials. For the same 
reasons outlined in the floor discussion for the kiln exhaust process 
streams, we believe that the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials is 
not a viable option. Therefore, because we did not identify any means 
by which existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph 
are currently reducing emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust 
process streams, the MACT floor for all pollutants from the kiln/
sawdust dryer process streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
    We also considered beyond-the-floor options for the kiln/sawdust 
dryer exhaust process stream that is part of some sawdust-fired tunnel 
kilns. The options we considered were: (1) Heating the sawdust dryer 
exhaust above the dew points of the acid gases and then applying DIFF 
or DLS/FF controls to the exhaust; (2) installing a DIFF or DLS/FF 
prior to the sawdust dryer, and then exhausting the APCD to the sawdust 
dryer; and (3) requiring that facilities purchase dry sawdust or use 
other methods to dry the sawdust, thus eliminating the kiln/sawdust 
dryer process stream. Because all of these

[[Page 47911]]

options involve additional costs beyond the costs of the options for 
controlling the kiln exhaust process stream, we determined that the 
benefits of requiring control of the kiln/sawdust dryer process stream 
for existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph do 
not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not requiring 
beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time for the 
kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process stream. The control level for the 
kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process stream from existing tunnel kilns 
with design capacities less than 10 tph is ``no emissions reductions.''
3. Existing Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Equal to or Greater 
Than 10 TPH
    As discussed earlier, tunnel kilns may have more than one process 
stream, including the kiln exhaust process stream and the kiln/sawdust 
dryer exhaust process stream.
    a. Kiln Exhaust Process Stream. The subcategory of tunnel kilns 
with design capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph of fired product 
includes 97 tunnel kilns that are located at major sources of HAP. The 
best-controlled 12 percent of these sources include four DIFF-
controlled, four DLS/FF-controlled, two WS-controlled, and two DLA-
controlled kilns. The level of control that corresponds to the mean of 
the best-controlled 12 percent of these kilns is the 94th percentile 
level of control. We consider the DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS installed on 10 
of the best-controlled 12 sources to provide equivalent overall control 
of HAP, and each of these controls, therefore, is representative of the 
94th percentile level of control. The proposed emission limits are 
based on the performance of all three control technologies. In addition 
to APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of 
low-HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data do not 
show increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on 
fuel type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition, low-HAP 
raw material use is not a viable MACT option because all facilities use 
local clays and shales to produce BSCP, and such local materials are 
integral to those products. The procurement of low-HAP raw materials as 
a control measure is not done in the BSCP industry. Beyond-the-floor 
options for the kiln exhaust process stream were not evaluated because 
emissions reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the 
best control achieved by sources that would be subject to the proposed 
rule.
    b. Kiln/Sawdust Dryer Exhaust Process Stream. None of the kiln/
sawdust dryer exhaust process streams are equipped with APCD, and to 
our knowledge, no existing tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to 
or greater than 10 tph are using low-HAP fuels or raw materials to 
reduce HAP emissions from their kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process 
streams. Therefore, the MACT floor for these kiln/sawdust dryer process 
streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
    We considered beyond-the-floor options for the kiln/sawdust dryer 
exhaust process stream that is part of some sawdust-fired tunnel kilns. 
The options we considered were: (1) Heating the sawdust dryer exhaust 
above the dew points of the acid gases and then applying DIFF, DLS/FF, 
WS, or equivalent control to the exhaust; (2) installing a DIFF, DLS/
FF, or equivalent control prior to the sawdust dryer, and then 
exhausting the APCD to the sawdust dryer; and (3) requiring that 
facilities purchase dry sawdust or use other methods to dry the 
sawdust, thus eliminating the kiln/sawdust dryer process stream and 
controlling the entire kiln exhaust process stream with a DIFF, DLS/FF, 
WS, or equivalent control. Because the beyond-the-floor options involve 
additional costs beyond the costs of the options for controlling the 
kiln exhaust process stream and because limited data show that sawdust 
dryers provide some degree (up to about 60 percent) of acid gas 
control, we determined that the benefits of requiring control of the 
kiln/sawdust dryer process stream for existing tunnel kilns with design 
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph do not justify the cost at 
this time. Therefore, we are not requiring beyond-the-floor levels of 
emissions reductions at this time for kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust 
process streams from existing tunnel kilns with a design capacity equal 
to or greater than 10 tph. The level of control for such process 
streams is ``no emissions reductions.''
    By contrast, for the class of existing tunnel kilns with design 
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph that first duct exhaust to 
sawdust dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., all 
process streams, including the kiln/sawdust dryer exhaust process 
stream) is subject to the same level of control requirement as a new 
tunnel kiln. We believe it is important to regulate all of the exhaust 
from this subset of existing tunnel kilns in order to prevent existing 
tunnel kilns that do not duct exhaust to sawdust dryers prior to July 
22, 2002 from circumventing the requirements of the proposed rule by 
ducting to sawdust dryers.
4. Consideration of ``Synthetic Area Sources'' in the MACT Floor 
Determinations for Existing Sources
    In determining the MACT floors as discussed above, we included 
``synthetic area sources'' (sometimes called ``synthetic minor 
sources''). Synthetic area sources include those that emit fewer than 
10 tons per year of any HAP or fewer than 25 tons per year of any 
combination of HAP because they use some emission control device (or 
devices) adopted under existing Federal or State regulations. In the 
absence of such controls, these sources would be major. In this 
proposal, however, we are requesting comment on whether or not 
synthetic area sources should be included in or excluded from the MACT 
floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns. Industry 
representatives have stated that the MACT floor determination should 
not include these synthetic area sources. Whether or not synthetic area 
sources are included would affect the level of control represented by 
the floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns. (By contrast, the 
floor determination for existing periodic kilns would not be affected 
by the inclusion or exclusion of synthetic area sources, because the 
MACT floor for such kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'')
    The way that including or excluding synthetic area sources would 
affect the floor determinations for tunnel kilns would vary depending 
on the design capacity-based subcategorization level. For example, for 
existing tunnel kilns, with no subcategories based on design capacity, 
the MACT floor would be a DLA if synthetic area sources are included in 
the floor determination; the MACT floor would be ``no emissions 
reductions'' if synthetic area sources are excluded from the floor 
determination. Thus, excluding synthetic area sources from the MACT 
floor determination in this example would reduce the number of impacted 
facilities, the total annual cost, and the HAP emissions reductions 
achieved at the floor level of control. Control options more stringent 
than the MACT floor of ``no emissions reductions'' must then be 
evaluated, considering the associated costs, non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements, to arrive at the 
requirements of the proposed rule. Furthermore, with 10 tph design 
capacity-based subcategories (as proposed), the MACT floor would be a 
DIFF, DLS/FF or WS if synthetic area sources are included in the floor 
determination and the MACT floor

[[Page 47912]]

would be a DLA if synthetic area sources are excluded from the floor 
determination. Accordingly, excluding synthetic area sources from the 
MACT floor determination in this example would reduce both the total 
annual cost and the HAP emissions reductions achieved. EPA specifically 
solicits comment on whether or not synthetic area sources should be 
included in the MACT floor determinations for existing tunnel kilns.

D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for New Sources?

    For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floors to be based on 
the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. In some instances, the existing source MACT 
floor control levels may also represent the level of control 
appropriate for new sources. In these instances, the existing source 
MACT floor technology represents the greatest degree of emissions 
reductions that is achievable. In other instances, the MACT floor 
levels of control for new sources are more stringent than for existing 
sources.
1. New Periodic Kilns
    We determined, based on design differences and the fact that 
periodic kilns are batch processes, that periodic kilns and tunnel 
kilns are not similar sources. Two major design differences between 
periodic and tunnel kilns are the varying temperature and flow profiles 
associated with periodic kilns. In a single batch cycle, periodic kiln 
exhaust temperatures begin at ambient temperature and minimal air flow 
and gradually increase to temperatures that may exceed 315 deg.C 
(600 deg.F) and flow rates in excess of 340 actual cubic meters per 
minute (m\3\/min) (12,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm)). In 
contrast, tunnel kiln exhaust temperatures and flow rates remain 
relatively constant. In addition, periodic kilns involve a batch 
process whereas tunnel kilns involve a continuous process. Another 
difference in periodic kilns and tunnel kilns is that periodic kilns 
generally are used to produce specialty products such as brick shapes 
and structural pipe, whereas tunnel kilns typically are used to produce 
face brick and other standard products. Finally, APCD have not been 
proven on periodic kilns. Dry injection fabric filters, DLS/FF, and WS 
that are used to control HAP emissions from tunnel kilns have not been 
applied to periodic kilns, and it is not clear how these APCD would 
perform on periodic kilns with highly variable temperature and flow 
profiles. For these reasons, we do not consider periodic kilns and 
tunnel kilns to be similar sources. Therefore, MACT for new periodic 
kilns is based on the best-controlled periodic kiln. Currently, one 
periodic kiln is equipped with a DLA, but the DLA has not been proven 
effective in controlling emissions from the kiln. As previously 
explained, MACT options such as low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not 
appropriate for BSCP kilns. Therefore, the best-controlled similar 
source is an uncontrolled periodic kiln, and the MACT floor level of 
control for new periodic kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'' Because 
no APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe 
that low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no 
beyond-the-floor options for new periodic kilns. Therefore, we have 
determined that the control level for new periodic kilns should be ``no 
emissions reductions.''
2. New Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Less Than 10 TPH
    The new source MACT floor for tunnel kilns with design capacities 
less than 10 tph is based on the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. We identified a tunnel 
kiln with a design capacity equal to or greater than 10 tph of fired 
product as the best-controlled similar source. Although the MACT floor 
levels of control for existing tunnel kilns with design capacities less 
than 10 tph are ``no emissions reductions,'' we determined that the 
MACT control levels for new tunnel kilns with design capacities less 
than 10 tph are represented by DIFF-, DLS/FF-, or WS-based controls. 
The basis of this determination is that there are no design differences 
based on kiln size that would preclude the ability of a smaller (less 
than 10 tph capacity) kiln to be controlled with technologies that 
primarily have been applied to larger kilns. In fact, one new (on-line 
in November 2000) kiln with a capacity between 9 and 10 tph is 
currently controlled with a DIFF. Moreover, new sources have the 
ability to plan for achieving emissions reductions efficiently during 
the design phase that precedes their construction. Therefore, control 
with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control represents MACT for new 
tunnel kilns with design capacities less than 10 tph of fired product.
    All process streams from new tunnel kilns would be subject to the 
emission limitations because the best-controlled sources control 100 
percent of their kiln exhaust. As previously explained, options such as 
low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for BSCP kilns. 
Beyond-the-floor options were not evaluated because emissions 
reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the best overall 
control of HAP.
3. New Tunnel Kilns With Design Capacities Equal to or Greater Than 10 
TPH
    The controls that we consider to represent the MACT floor for 
existing tunnel kilns with design capacities equal to or greater than 
10 tph of fired product also are considered to be the best controls 
available for controlling HF, HCl, and PM emissions from such brick 
kilns. Therefore, control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent 
control represents the MACT floor for new tunnel kilns with design 
capacities equal to or greater than 10 tph.
    All process streams from new tunnel kilns would be subject to the 
emission limitations because the best-controlled sources control 100 
percent of the kiln exhaust. As previously explained, MACT options such 
as low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for BSCP kilns. 
Beyond-the-floor options were not evaluated because emissions 
reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS represent the best overall 
control of HAP.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?

    The formats for complying with today's proposed rule include 
production-based emission limits and percent reduction emission limits. 
Affected tunnel kilns would have the option of meeting production-based 
or percent reduction emission limits for HF and HCl. The percent 
reduction emission limits alternative for HF and HCl is offered to 
account for the variability in the amount of these HAP in the 
uncontrolled kiln emissions because kilns with higher inlet HF or HCl 
concentrations may not be capable of meeting the production-based 
emission limits. Affected tunnel kilns would also have to meet a 
production-based emission limit for PM.

F. How Did We Determine the Emission Limits?

    We have performance data for five of the nine DLS/FF and DIFF and 
one of the two WS currently operating on BSCP kilns. The evaluation of 
the data included analyses of APCD operating parameters to determine 
whether the devices were operating properly during the emission tests. 
The emissions data were used to develop production-based and percent 
removal emission limits for HF and HCl emissions from tunnel kilns. In 
addition, a production-based

[[Page 47913]]

PM emission limit for affected tunnel kilns was developed using the 
test data. Additional details on the test data and analyses are 
available in docket A-99-30.
1. Hydrogen Fluoride
    The proposed HF emission limits for tunnel kilns include a 
production-based emission limit of 0.0135 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton) of fired 
product and a percent reduction emission limit of at least 95 percent. 
To develop this percent reduction emission limit, we analyzed the 
available HF test data from DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled kilns. 
The individual emission tests show HF or total fluoride (TF) control 
efficiencies ranging from 95.9 percent to 99.9 percent. The available 
data show that TF and HF emissions from tunnel kilns are similar, and 
we, therefore, consider TF control efficiencies to be good estimates of 
HF control efficiencies for DIFF, DLS/FF, and WS systems. For DIFF 
systems, one available test shows a TF control efficiency of 99.8 
percent. Five HF emission tests conducted on four DLS/FF-controlled 
kilns show control efficiencies of 95.9 percent, 96.9 percent, 98.5 
percent, 99.7 percent, and 99.9 percent. Two TF emission tests 
conducted on a WS-controlled kiln show control efficiencies of 98.8 
percent and 99.9 percent. These data indicate that DIFF, DLS/FF, and 
WS, all of which are considered representative of MACT, currently 
operating on the best-controlled BSCP kilns are capable of achieving HF 
control efficiencies of 95 percent. In addition, 95 percent is the 
highest control level that DIFF and DLS/FF manufacturers have 
guaranteed for BSCP kilns. The 95 percent control efficiency was used 
in conjunction with the average uncontrolled HF emission factor for the 
BSCP industry, 0.27 kg/Mg (0.54 lb/ton), to calculate the proposed HF 
emission limit of 0.014 kg/Mg (0.027 lb/ton).
2. Hydrogen Chloride
    The proposed HCl emission limits include a production-based 
emission limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of fired product and a 
percent reduction emission limit of at least 90 percent. To develop 
this percent reduction emission limit, we analyzed the available HCl 
test data from DLS/FF-controlled kilns. Emission tests conducted on two 
DLS/FF-controlled kilns showed HCl control efficiencies of 98.2 percent 
and 99.8 percent. Because no data are available to quantify HCl control 
efficiencies for DIFF or WS in the BSCP industry, we examined HCl data 
for DIFF and WS operating in other industries. Data from DIFF that are 
used to control emissions from sources within the secondary aluminum 
industry indicate that the systems provide 90 percent control of HCl, 
which is the HCl emission limit in the secondary aluminum NESHAP (65 FR 
15690, March 23, 2000). Measured HCl concentrations from sources within 
the secondary aluminum industry are within the range of concentrations 
measured from brick kilns. Wet scrubbers are expected to perform at 
least as well as DLS/FF and DIFF. Additionally, data from WS used on 
medical waste incinerators show HCl reductions of 99 percent, although 
these control efficiencies were achieved on much higher inlet HCl 
loadings (61 FR 31736, June 20, 1996). Because we believe that it is 
important to consider the variability in performance of the control 
technologies representative of MACT, we selected 90 percent as the 
percent reduction emission limit for HCl. Control device vendors have 
indicated that WS can meet this emission limit. This 90 percent control 
efficiency was used in conjunction with the average uncontrolled HCl 
emission factor for the BSCP industry, 0.19 kg/Mg (0.37 lb/ton), to 
calculate the proposed HCl emission limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/
ton).
3. Particulate Matter
    Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate pollutant for HAP 
metals, including mercury in particulate form, that are emitted from 
BSCP kilns. The percentages of PM emissions composed of HAP metals at 
four facilities for which HAP metals and PM data are available are 0.16 
percent, 0.99 percent, 2.8 percent, and 4.5 percent. The large degree 
of variability in these percentages may be a result of differences in 
metallic surface coatings, body additives, brick raw material 
composition, kiln fuel, or a combination of these factors. The 
available test data for DIFF-, DLS/FF-, and WS-controlled kilns 
indicate that production-based outlet PM emissions range from 0.0017 
kg/Mg (0.0034 lb/ton) to 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton). We selected the 
high end of the range from the best-controlled kilns, 0.060 kg/Mg (0.12 
lb/ton) of fired product, as the PM emission limit for tunnel kilns in 
order to include WS, which would be less costly for some facilities 
than DIFF and DLS/FF and which would more readily achieve high HF and 
HCl removal, as a viable control option for complying with the proposed 
rule.

G. How Did We Select the Operating Limits and Monitoring Requirements?

    We selected operating limits and monitoring requirements that would 
ensure proper operation of APCD used to comply with the proposed rule. 
These operating limits and monitoring requirements would require you to 
monitor and maintain certain parameters within levels established 
during performance tests that documented compliance with the proposed 
emission limits. We believe that these operating limits and monitoring 
requirements would provide sufficient information needed to assure 
continuing compliance or identify operating problems at the source. At 
the same time, the provisions are not labor intensive, do not require 
expensive or complex equipment, and do not require burdensome 
recordkeeping. Temperature monitoring and recording equipment and lime 
injection rate monitoring and recording equipment are standard features 
on DIFF and DLS/FF. Water injection rate monitoring and recording 
equipment is a standard feature on DLS/FF. For WS, pressure drop 
monitors and liquid flow monitors often are part of standard scrubber 
instrumentation.

V. Summary of the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

A. What Source Category Is Regulated by the Proposed Rule?

    Today's proposed rule for clay ceramics manufacturing applies to 
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that are, are located at, or are 
part of, a major source of HAP emissions. The clay ceramics 
manufacturing source category includes those facilities that 
manufacture pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, and other pressed 
tile; or sanitaryware (toilets and sinks). Clay ceramics are primarily 
composed of clay and shale, and may include many different additives, 
including silica, talc, and various high purity powders produced by 
chemical synthesis. Clay ceramics manufacturing generally includes raw 
material processing and handling and forming of the tile or 
sanitaryware shapes, followed by drying, glazing, and firing. Most clay 
ceramics are coated with a glaze prior to firing. The clay ceramics 
industry also includes dinnerware and pottery manufacturing, but these 
industry segments are not covered by the proposed rule because we 
determined that there are no dinnerware or pottery manufacturing 
facilities that are major sources of HAP.
    Available information shows a total of 58 facilities that produce 
clay ceramics. Thirty-one of these facilities, located in 16 States, 
primarily produce pressed tile, while 26 of these facilities, located 
in 15 States, primarily produce

[[Page 47914]]

sanitaryware. Eight of the 58 clay ceramics manufacturing facilities 
are estimated to be major sources. Thirteen clay ceramics facilities 
are owned by small businesses, and none of the small business-owned 
facilities are estimated to be major sources.
    All clay ceramics are fired in kilns. Firing may be performed in 
one or more stages. Tile can be fired in either continuous (tunnel or 
roller) or batch (periodic) kilns, but most facilities use either 
tunnel or roller kilns for tile production. Most newer tile kilns are 
roller kilns, which are considerably more fuel efficient than tunnel 
kilns. Production rates for both tunnel and roller kilns average 
between 2 and 3 tph. Nearly all kilns are fueled by natural gas. 
Periodic kilns are usually used at smaller facilities or are used 
primarily for second-firing a product after a glaze has been applied. 
Most of the periodic kiln times range from 20 to 40 hours per batch.
    The sanitaryware industry uses either tunnel kilns or periodic 
kilns for firing. Tunnel kilns account for most sanitaryware firing; 
periodic kilns are used primarily for refiring rejected pieces that 
have been repaired and re-glazed. Some smaller facilities use periodic 
kilns for all firing operations. Production rates for tunnel kilns 
average between 2 and 3 tph. Most sanitaryware kilns are fired with 
natural gas. Most tunnel and periodic kilns operate with maximum 
temperatures in the range of 950 deg. to 1260 deg.C (1750 deg. to 
2300 deg.F).
    The primary HAP emission sources at clay ceramics manufacturing 
plants are roller, tunnel, and periodic kilns which emit HF, HCl, and 
HAP metals. Kilns also emit PM and SO2. Currently, no APCD 
are used by the clay ceramics industry to control emissions from kilns. 
Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics manufacturing plants 
are the raw material processing and handling equipment.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

    The affected sources, which are the portions of each source in the 
category for which we are setting emission standards, are each new or 
reconstructed tunnel and roller kiln. Kilns that are used exclusively 
for R&D and not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are 
not subject to the requirements of today's proposed rule. Kilns that 
are used exclusively for refiring or for setting glazes on previously 
fired products are not subject to the requirements of today's proposed 
rule.
    A source is a new affected source if construction began after July 
22, 2002. An affected source is reconstructed if the criteria defined 
in 40 CFR 63.2 are met.

C. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?

    New or reconstructed affected sources with an initial startup 
before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register] 
must comply no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register]. New or reconstructed affected sources with an 
initial startup after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register] must comply upon initial startup. Any portion of 
existing facilities that become new or reconstructed major sources and 
any new or reconstructed area sources that become major sources must be 
in compliance upon initial startup.

D. What Are the Emission Limits?

    Today's proposed rule includes emission limits in the form of 
production-based mass emission limits and percent reduction 
requirements. In establishing the HAP emission limits, we selected PM 
as a surrogate for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form. 
Today's proposed rule includes HF, HCl, and PM emission limits for new 
and reconstructed affected sources at clay ceramics manufacturing 
facilities.
    If you own or operate a new or reconstructed tunnel or roller kiln, 
you would be required to meet an HF emission limit of 0.014 kg/Mg 
(0.027 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HF emissions by at 
least 95 percent. You also would be required to meet an HCl emission 
limit of 0.019 kg/Mg (0.037 lb/ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled 
HCl emissions by at least 90 percent. If you own or operate a new or 
reconstructed tunnel or roller kiln, you also would be required to meet 
a PM emission limit of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton).

E. What Are the Operating Limits?

    The operating limits being proposed for new and reconstructed clay 
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are the same as those that are being 
proposed for new and reconstructed BSCP tunnel kilns. These operating 
limits are presented in section II.E of this preamble. We also are 
soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM CEMS as a method 
to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits 
for clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns. Specifically, we are 
soliciting comment on the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM 
emission limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and 
averaging time of a CEMS-based PM emission limit and the methodology 
for deriving the limit from the available data for clay ceramics tunnel 
and roller kilns.
    We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance 
of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and 
through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is 
sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on clay ceramics tunnel and 
roller kilns.
    We intend to propose revisions to the performance specification for 
PM CEMS (PS-11, 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and Procedure 2, 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix F) in the near future with subsequent promulgation.

F. What Are the Performance Test and Initial Compliance Requirements?

    The performance test and initial compliance requirements being 
proposed for new and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller 
kilns are the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP 
manufacturing kilns. These requirements are presented in section II.F 
of this preamble.

G. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements?

    The continuous compliance requirements being proposed for new and 
reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are the same as 
those that are being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns. These 
requirements are presented in section II.G of this preamble.

H. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements being 
proposed for new and reconstructed clay ceramics tunnel and roller 
kilns are the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP 
manufacturing kilns. These requirements are presented in section II.H 
of this preamble.

VI. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts for the 
Proposed Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed 
rule, no air quality impacts are projected for existing sources. To 
project air quality impacts for new sources, we assumed that one tile 
roller kiln (3.5 tph capacity) and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln (4 tph 
capacity), each equipped with a DIFF, will begin operation at the 
beginning of the first year following promulgation of the rule as 
proposed. We estimate that by implementing the rule as proposed,

[[Page 47915]]

HF emissions from these new sources would be reduced by 8.1 Mg/yr (8.9 
tpy), HCl emissions would be reduced by 4.8 Mg/yr (5.3 tpy), and HAP 
metals emissions would be reduced by 0.19 Mg/yr (0.21 tpy). We also 
estimate that PM and SO2 emissions from the new kilns would 
be reduced by 9.0 Mg/yr (9.9 tpy) and 22 Mg/yr (24 tpy), respectively.
    Secondary air impacts associated with the proposed clay ceramics 
rule are direct impacts that result from the operation of any new APCD. 
The generation of electricity required to operate the control devices 
on the two projected new kilns will result in 0.4 tpy of NOX 
emissions in the first year following promulgation of the rule as 
proposed. The electricity was assumed to be generated by natural gas-
fired turbines.

B. What Are the Water and Solid Waste Impacts?

    Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed 
rule, no water and solid waste impacts are projected for existing 
sources. Our analyses are based on the use of DIFF for controlling new 
kilns and, therefore, no water impacts are projected for new sources. 
To project solid waste impacts for new sources, we assumed that one 
tile roller kiln and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a 
DIFF, will begin operation at the beginning of the first year following 
promulgation of the rule as proposed. The solid waste disposal impacts 
that result from the use of DIFF will include the disposal of the spent 
lime that is injected into the kiln exhaust stream and subsequently 
captured by a fabric filter. We calculated the solid waste by taking 
the difference between the amount of lime injected into the system and 
the amount of reacted lime and adding the amount of reaction products. 
Stoichiometric ratios of 1.0 to 1.5 have been reported for the DIFF in 
use in the brick manufacturing industry. An average stoichiometric 
ratio of 1.35 was used in this analysis. We estimate that implementing 
the rule as proposed would result in the generation of 114 Mg/yr (126 
tpy) of solid waste from new sources.

C. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed 
rule, no energy impacts are projected for existing sources. To project 
energy impacts for new sources, we assumed that one tile roller kiln 
and one sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a DIFF, will begin 
operation at the beginning of the first year following promulgation of 
the rule as proposed. Energy impacts consist of the electricity needed 
to operate the DIFF. Electricity requirements are driven primarily by 
the size of the fan needed in the control device. We estimate the 
increase in energy consumption that would result from implementation of 
the rule as proposed to be 3.2 terajoules per year (3.0 billion Btu per 
year).

D. Are There Any Additional Environmental and Health Impacts?

    Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed 
rule, no additional environmental and health impacts are projected for 
existing sources. The HAP controls that are likely to be installed on 
new kilns also provide control of SO2 and PM emissions. We 
estimate that SO2 and PM emissions from the projected new 
kilns would be reduced by 22 Mg/yr (24 tpy) and 9.0 Mg/yr (9.9 tpy), 
respectively.

E. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    Because we are not regulating existing sources under the proposed 
rule, no cost impacts are projected for existing sources. To project 
costs for new sources, we assumed that one tile roller kiln and one 
sanitaryware tunnel kiln, each equipped with a DIFF, will be built 
during the first year following promulgation of the rule as proposed. 
We estimate the capital costs associated with implementation of the 
rule as proposed to be $1.1 million for new sources. The capital costs 
include the purchase and installation of DIFF and monitoring equipment. 
We estimate the annualized costs associated with implementation of the 
rule as proposed to be $560,000 per year for new sources. The 
annualized costs include annualized capital costs of the control and 
monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, emission 
testing costs, and recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with 
installing and operating the DIFF.
    We calculated the cost estimates using cost algorithms that are 
based on procedures from EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual (EPA 450/3-90-
006, January 1990) and cost information provided by the BSCP industry 
and control device vendors. We estimated costs by developing model 
process units that correspond to the various sizes of kilns found at 
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Additional information on the 
model process units and cost estimates are included in docket A-2000-
48.

F. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The goal of the economic impact analysis is to estimate the market 
response of clay ceramics manufacturing producers to the proposed rule 
and to determine the economic effects that may result due to the 
proposed rule. Because the MACT floor for existing clay ceramics kilns 
is ``no emissions reductions,'' there are no compliance costs 
associated with today's proposed rule. The aggregate price of ceramic 
products is, therefore, expected to remain the same. Because the prices 
of ceramic products are not expected to change due to the proposed 
rule, there are no projected changes in domestic production, domestic 
consumption, or foreign trade. Therefore, no economic impacts on 
existing major sources are expected from the proposed rule.
    Unlike existing sources, new sources used to produce clay ceramics 
will face positive compliance costs. We estimate that two new kilns 
will be constructed in the first 5 years after the rule is promulgated 
as proposed. One new 3.5 tph capacity roller kiln is projected to come 
on-line in the ceramic floor and wall tile industry, and one new 4 tph 
capacity tunnel kiln is projected for the sanitaryware industry. 
Industry compliance costs associated with these kilns are expected to 
be less than 0.1 percent of industry value of shipments for each of 
these industries. At the new kiln level, the share of costs to sales 
generated from the output produced by the ceramic floor and wall tile 
kiln is expected to be less than 1.5 percent. No level of cost-to-sales 
for sanitaryware kilns could be developed due to the diversity of 
product types that they produce.

VII. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards for Clay Ceramics 
Manufacturing

A. How Did We Select the Emission Sources and Pollutants That Will Be 
Regulated?

    In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the most significant 
sources of HAP emissions are kilns, including continuous (tunnel and 
roller) kilns and periodic kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at 
clay ceramics manufacturing facilities are the raw material processing 
and handling equipment. The proposed rule covers new tunnel and roller 
kilns at major source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities.
    At the temperatures encountered in clay ceramics kilns, naturally 
occurring fluorides and chlorides found in raw clays and shales are 
released to the atmosphere as HF and HCl. We estimate that eight clay 
ceramics manufacturing facilities emit more than 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of 
HF and, therefore, are major

[[Page 47916]]

sources as defined by the CAA. In addition, we estimate that some of 
these facilities may emit more than 9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of HCl. In 
addition to HF and HCl, it is likely that all of the HAP metals 
(antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, 
manganese, mercury (in particulate form), nickel, and selenium) listed 
in section 112(b) of the CAA may be emitted from clay ceramics kilns 
because these pollutants have been detected in brick kiln exhaust. The 
HAP metals may emanate from trace quantities of metals found in raw 
materials, metallic body additives, glazes, and other surface coatings 
commonly used in the industry, or from the fuels fired in the kilns. 
Therefore, we propose to regulate HF, HCl, and HAP metals (using PM as 
a surrogate for HAP metals, including mercury in particulate form) 
emissions from clay ceramics kilns. Clay ceramics kilns that are used 
exclusively for refiring or for setting glazes on previously fired 
products are not expected to emit HF or HCl and, therefore, would not 
be subject to the proposed rule.
    Particulate matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metals that 
are emitted in particulate form because HAP metals are expected to be 
present in the clay ceramics kiln exhaust stream, and the same control 
mechanisms that remove PM from the exhaust stream also will remove 
nonvolatile and semi-volatile HAP metals. Available data from the brick 
industry show that HAP metals constitute between 0.16 percent and 4.5 
percent of kiln PM emissions. The use of PM as a surrogate pollutant 
for HAP metals also reduces the costs associated with compliance 
testing and monitoring because such testing and monitoring is necessary 
only for a single PM emission limit, rather than for numerous emission 
limits for individual HAP metals.

B. How Did We Determine Subcategories?

    Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows EPA to promulgate emission 
standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through 
subcategorization, we are able to define subsets of similar emission 
sources within a source category if differences in emissions 
characteristics, processes, APCD viability, or opportunities for 
pollution prevention exist within the source category. Upon initial 
consideration of the available information on the clay ceramics 
manufacturing industry, we determined that separate subcategories for 
periodic kilns and continuous (tunnel and roller) kilns were warranted 
because periodic kilns are smaller than tunnel and roller kilns (with 
lower production on an hourly basis, and accounting for only a small 
percentage of total clay ceramics industry production) and are operated 
in batch cycles, whereas tunnel and roller kilns operate continuously. 
We also examined subcategorization by kiln fuel, but determined that 
fuel-based subcategories are not appropriate for these sources because 
available data from similar sources in the BSCP industry do not show 
increased HAP emissions based on fuel use.

C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for Existing Sources?

    The CAA specifies that we set standards for existing sources that 
are no less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources where there are 30 
or more sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) 
in the category or subcategory, or the best performing five sources 
(for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions 
information) where there are fewer than 30 sources.
    After identifying the MACT floors for existing sources, we also 
consider control options more stringent than the MACT floor levels. The 
selected option may be more stringent than the MACT floor, but the 
control level must be achievable and reasonable in the Administrator's 
judgement considering cost, non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements. The objective is to achieve the 
maximum degree of emissions reductions without imposing unreasonable 
impacts (see section 112(d)(2)of the CAA).
1. Existing Periodic Kilns
    No existing periodic kilns are equipped with APCD. In addition to 
APCD, we considered other possible MACT floors such as the use of low-
HAP fuels or raw materials. However, because available data from the 
clay ceramics and BSCP industries do not show increased HAP emissions 
based on fuel use, a MACT floor based on fuel type is not appropriate 
for these sources. In addition, procurement of low-HAP raw materials 
has not been identified as a control measure that is used in the clay 
ceramics industry. Therefore, the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM 
control for existing periodic kilns are ``no emissions reductions.''
    We consider clay ceramics periodic kilns to be similar sources to 
BSCP periodic kilns. Currently, one BSCP periodic kiln is equipped with 
a DLA, but the DLA has not been proven effective in controlling 
emissions from the kiln. We believe that requiring the use of low-HAP 
fuels would not be appropriate for these sources because, as noted 
above, available data do not show increased HAP emissions based on fuel 
use. We also believe that requiring procurement of low-HAP raw 
materials would not be appropriate because the raw materials used in 
clay ceramics manufacturing are integral to the end products 
manufactured. Because no APCD have been demonstrated to control HAP 
emissions from clay ceramics periodic kilns or BSCP periodic kilns, and 
low-HAP fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no 
beyond-the-floor options for existing periodic kilns. Therefore, we 
have determined that the control level for existing periodic kilns 
should be ``no emissions reductions.''
2. Existing Tunnel Kilns and Roller Kilns
    No existing clay ceramics tunnel kilns or roller kilns are equipped 
with APCD. In addition to APCD, we considered other possible MACT 
floors such as the use of low-HAP fuels or raw materials. However, 
because available data from the clay ceramics and BSCP industries do 
not show increased HAP emissions based on fuel use, a MACT floor based 
on fuel type is not appropriate for these sources. In addition, 
procurement of low-HAP raw materials has not been identified as a 
control measure that is used in the clay ceramics industry. Therefore, 
the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control for existing clay 
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns are ``no emissions reductions.''
    We considered beyond-the-floor controls for existing clay ceramics 
tunnel and roller kilns. For these analyses, we assessed the costs, 
emissions reductions, and other impacts of installing and operating a 
DIFF, which is one APCD representative of the MACT floor for new clay 
ceramics tunnel and roller kilns, on each existing tunnel and roller 
kiln located at a major source of HAP. After analyzing all of the 
impacts of retrofitting each of the 14 existing tile tunnel kilns, 16 
existing tile roller kilns, and 23 existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns 
with a DIFF to control HAP emissions, we concluded that setting 
standards reflecting this beyond-the-floor approach would be 
unreasonable at this time. Our analysis included an estimate of 
emissions reductions that would be achieved by this approach, secondary 
air impacts, non-air quality impacts, and cost impacts on the clay 
ceramics manufacturing industry. Primary HAP air pollution impacts from 
the beyond-

[[Page 47917]]

the-floor approach consist of the reduction of HF, HCl, and HAP metals 
emissions. Specifically, the beyond-the-floor approach would reduce 
total HAP emissions from existing clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns 
by 435 tpy, or 99 percent, from a baseline HAP emission level of 441 
tpy. Particulate matter emissions reductions (PM is used as a surrogate 
for HAP metals) and co-control of SO2 emissions (from the 
baseline level) also would result from the beyond-the-floor approach. 
The estimated baseline emissions and emissions reductions for the 
beyond-the-floor approach for clay ceramics tunnel kilns and roller 
kilns are summarized in Table 5 of this preamble. Table 6 of this 
preamble shows a summary of the results of our evaluations of secondary 
air, solid waste, energy, and cost impacts for this approach. Using the 
emissions reductions estimates shown in Table 5 of this preamble and 
the beyond-the-floor cost presented in Table 6 of this preamble, the 
nationwide cost effectiveness of requiring clay ceramics tunnel and 
roller kilns to install DIFF controls is about $36,000 per ton of HAP 
removed. In addition, the costs of the beyond-the-floor approach are 
significantly higher than those of the floor level of control. 
Specifically, the cost of the beyond-the-floor approach is estimated to 
be $15.8 million for the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, compared 
to no cost for existing sources under the floor approach.

  Table 5.--Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Beyond-the-
      Floor Control of Clay Ceramics Tunnel Kilns and Roller Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline      Emissions
           Pollutant             emissions,    reductions,     Percent
                                     tpy           tpy        reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF............................         267           265            99
HCl...........................         167           164            98
HAP metals....................           5.9           5.9          99.9
Total HAP.....................         441           435            99
PM............................         294           294            99.9
SO2...........................       1,460           730            50
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    TABLE 6.--Summary of Secondary Air, Solid Waste, Energy, and Cost
 Impacts for Beyond-the-Floor Control of Clay Ceramics Tunnel Kilns and
                              Roller Kilns
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Beyond-the-floor
        Type of impact                impact              Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondary air: NOX............  12 tpy NOX         Based on electricity
                                 increase.          provided by gas
                                                    turbines.
Solid waste...................  3,800 tpy........  Assumes facilities
                                                    must dispose of all
                                                    waste lime as solid
                                                    waste.
Energy........................  92,000 MMBtu/yr..
Cost..........................  $15.8 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the aforementioned analyses, we determined that the 
benefits of requiring controls for existing tunnel kilns and roller 
kilns do not justify the cost at this time. Therefore, we are not 
requiring beyond-the-floor levels of emissions reductions at this time. 
Based on these considerations, we have decided that the control level 
for existing clay ceramics tunnel kilns and roller kilns should be ``no 
emissions reductions.''

D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floors for New Sources?

    For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floors to be based on 
the degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source.
1. New Periodic Kilns
    Because we consider clay ceramics periodic kilns to be similar 
sources to BSCP periodic kilns, MACT for new clay ceramics periodic 
kilns is based on the best-controlled clay ceramics or BSCP periodic 
kiln. Currently, one BSCP periodic kiln is equipped with a DLA, but the 
DLA has not been proven effective in controlling emissions from the 
kiln. As previously explained, MACT options such as low-HAP fuels or 
raw materials are not appropriate for clay ceramics kilns. Therefore, 
the best-controlled similar source is an uncontrolled periodic kiln, 
and the MACT floor level of control for new clay ceramics periodic 
kilns is ``no emissions reductions.'' Because no APCD have been 
demonstrated to control HAP emissions, and we believe that low-HAP 
fuels or raw materials are not viable options, we found no beyond-the-
floor options for new periodic kilns. Therefore, we have determined 
that the control level for new periodic kilns should be ``no emissions 
reductions.''
2. New Tunnel and Roller Kilns
    For new clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns, we identified tunnel 
kilns that produce BSCP as the best-controlled similar source. Although 
the MACT floor levels of HF, HCl, and PM control for clay ceramics 
kilns are ``no emissions reductions,'' we determined that MACT for new 
tunnel and roller kilns is represented by DIFF-, DLS/FF-, or WS-based 
controls. These controls are considered equivalent in overall control 
of HAP and are installed on the ten best performing existing BSCP 
tunnel kilns. The basis of this determination is that BSCP kilns and 
clay ceramics kilns process many of the same types of raw materials, 
and the types of emissions (HF, HCl, HAP metals) are the same. 
Therefore, control with a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or equivalent control 
represents the MACT floor level of control for new clay ceramics tunnel 
and roller kilns. As previously explained, MACT options such as low-HAP 
fuels or raw materials are not appropriate for clay ceramics kilns. 
Beyond-the-floor options for new tunnel and roller kilns were not 
evaluated because the emissions reductions achieved by DIFF, DLS/FF, 
and WS represent the best overall control of HAP.

E. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?

    The formats for complying with today's proposed rule include 
production-based emission limits and percent reduction emission limits. 
Affected tunnel and roller kilns would

[[Page 47918]]

have the option of meeting production-based or percent reduction 
emission limits for HF and HCl. The percent reduction emission limits 
alternative for HF and HCl is offered to account for the variability in 
the amount of these HAP in the uncontrolled kiln emissions, because 
kilns with higher inlet HF or HCl concentrations may not be capable of 
meeting the production-based emission limits. Affected tunnel and 
roller kilns also would have to meet a production-based emission limit 
for PM.

F. How Did We Determine the Emission Limits?

    Because we determined clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns to be 
similar sources to BSCP tunnel kilns, and we based MACT on the best-
controlled BSCP tunnel kilns, the emission limits being proposed for 
clay ceramics manufacturing kilns are the same emission limits that are 
being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns. The rationale for the 
development of the emission limits for BSCP manufacturing kilns is 
discussed in section IV.F of this preamble.

G. How Did We Select the Operating Limits and Monitoring Requirements?

    Because we determined clay ceramics tunnel and roller kilns to be 
similar sources to BSCP tunnel kilns, and we based MACT on the best-
controlled BSCP tunnel kilns, the operating limits and monitoring 
requirements being proposed for clay ceramics manufacturing kilns are 
the same as those that are being proposed for BSCP manufacturing kilns. 
The rationale for the development of the operating limits and 
monitoring requirements is discussed in section IV.G of this preamble.

VIII. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We are seeking full public participation in arriving at our final 
decisions, and we encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal 
from all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses 
should be submitted with comments to allow us to make maximum use of 
the comments. Information on where and when to submit comments is 
listed under the ADDRESSES and DATES sections. Information on 
procedures for submitting proprietary information in the comments is 
listed under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the proposed rules are not ``significant regulatory 
actions'' because none of the listed criteria apply to these actions. 
Consequently, these actions were not submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rules are not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not economically 
significant regulatory actions as defined by Executive Order 12866, and 
they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety 
risks.

C. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that 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.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, the EPA must include a certification 
from EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    The proposed rules 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

[[Page 47919]]

levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The 
proposed rules would not impose directly enforceable requirements on 
States, nor would they preempt them from adopting their own more 
stringent programs to control emissions from BSCP and clay ceramics 
manufacturing facilities. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply to the proposed rules. Although section 6 
of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rules, the EPA 
is providing State and local officials an opportunity to comment on the 
proposed rules. A summary of the concerns raised during the notice and 
comment process and EPA's response to those concerns will be provided 
in the final rulemaking action.

D. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    The proposed rules do not have tribal implications. They 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. No 
tribal governments are known to own or operate BSCP or clay ceramics 
manufacturing facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
the proposed rules.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA 
policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, 
the EPA specifically solicits additional comment on the proposed rules 
from tribal officials.

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

    These rules are not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001) because they are not significant regulatory actions under 
Executive Order 12866.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with 
applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 
alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed, under section 203 of the UMRA, a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the proposed rules do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total annual cost for the proposed 
BSCP standards for any 1 year is estimated at $36 million. Because the 
proposed clay ceramics manufacturing standards would not regulate 
existing sources, the total annual cost is zero. Thus, today's proposed 
rules are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 
the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that the proposed rules 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because they contain no regulatory 
requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon 
them. Therefore, today's proposed rules are not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions. The following 
two sections provide descriptions of the small business assessments for 
the two categories of sources addressed by today's proposal.
1. Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
BSCP manufacturing sources that are small entities, a small entity is 
defined as: (1) A small business according to Small Business 
Administration (SBA) size standards; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 
Small Business Administration size standards for BSCP manufacturing, by 
NAICS code, are shown in Table 7 of this preamble.

[[Page 47920]]



     Table 7.--Small Business Size Standards for BSCP Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Size standard,
                      NAICS code                           number of
                                                           employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
327121...............................................                500
327122...............................................                500
327123...............................................                500
327125...............................................                750
327993...............................................                750
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the 
proposed standards on small businesses within the BSCP manufacturing 
industry. Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and reported sales 
and employment data, the EPA identified 77 of the 90 companies owning 
BSCP manufacturing facilities as small businesses. Although small 
businesses represent 86 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur 20 percent of the total industry 
engineering compliance costs of $35.8 million. Additionally, 66 of the 
77 small businesses will incur no costs. Under the proposed rule, the 
mean annual compliance cost for this source category, as a share of 
sales, for small businesses is 0.5 percent, and the median is 0.0 
percent, with a range of 0.0 percent to 5.3 percent. We estimate that 
one small firm in this source category may experience an impact between 
1 percent and 3 percent of sales, and 9 percent of small businesses (or 
eight firms) may experience an impact greater than 3 percent of sales.
    We also conducted an economic impact analysis that accounted for 
firm behavior to provide an estimate of the facility and market impacts 
of the proposed rule. The analysis projected that of the 189 facilities 
in this source category, two facilities are at risk of closure. Neither 
of these facilities is owned by a small business. The median compliance 
cost is below 1 percent of sales for both small and large firms 
affected by the proposed rule (0.0 and 0.1 percent for small and large 
firms, respectively).
    Fifteen new BSCP manufacturing sources are projected to be 
constructed during the five years after promulgation of the rule. 
Industry compliance costs associated with these sources are anticipated 
to be less than 0.5 percent of the BSCP manufacturing industry's value 
of shipments. According to the new source economic impact analysis, 
three to six of these new sources may be delayed in coming on-line due 
to the compliance costs they would face. We cannot determine with 
certainty whether these new sources will be built by large or small 
companies. Regardless, impacts at the company level are not expected to 
be significant for a substantial number of small entities.
2. Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
clay ceramics manufacturing sources that are small entities, a small 
entity is defined as: (1) A small business according to SBA size 
standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. Small Business Administration size 
standards for clay ceramics manufacturing, by NAICS code, are shown in 
Table 8 of this preamble.

 Table 8.--Small Business Size Standards for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Size standard,
                      NAICS code                           number of
                                                           employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
326191...............................................                500
327111...............................................                750
327112...............................................                500
327122...............................................                500
327123...............................................                500
327125...............................................                750
335121...............................................                500
421220...............................................                100
421320...............................................                100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on SBA NAICS-based size definitions and reported sales and 
employment data, the EPA identified 13 of the 29 companies owning clay 
ceramics manufacturing facilities as small businesses. Because the 
proposed rule does not include emissions limits or other requirements 
for existing kilns in the clay ceramics manufacturing source category, 
large or small, a firm's existing kilns will not be impacted by the 
proposed rule. One new ceramic tile manufacturing source and one new 
sanitaryware manufacturing source are projected to be constructed in 
the first five years following promulgation of the rule. Industry 
compliance costs associated with these sources are expected to be less 
than 0.1 percent of industry value of shipments for each of these 
industry segments. The share of costs to sales generated from the 
output produced by the new ceramic tile manufacturing source is 
expected to be less than 1.5 percent. No level of cost-to-sales for the 
new sanitaryware manufacturing source could be developed due to the 
diversity of product types produced. Thus, new clay ceramics 
manufacturing sources are expected to face positive compliance costs; 
however, we cannot determine with certainty whether these sources will 
be built by large or small companies. Regardless, impacts at the 
company level are not expected to be significant for a substantial 
number of small entities.
3. RFA Certification
    In summary, this action will regulate two source categories that 
include 90 small business companies out of 119 total companies that own 
BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. The mean annual 
compliance cost for the BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics 
manufacturing source categories, as a share of sales, for small 
businesses is 0.0 percent, and the median is 0.0 percent, with a range 
of 0.0 percent to 5.3 percent. Seventy-nine of the 90 small businesses 
will incur no costs. One small firm is projected to have compliance 
costs between 1 and 3 percent of their sales, and eight small firms are 
projected to have cost-to-sales ratios greater than 3 percent. No 
facilities owned by affected small firms are expected to close after 
implementation of this action. Industry compliance costs associated 
with the 17 new BSCP and clay ceramics manufacturing sources projected 
to be constructed during the five years after promulgation of this 
action are anticipated to be less than 0.5 percent of each industry's 
value of shipments.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities in these two source categories, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Although the proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we have 
nonetheless worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the proposed 
rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. 
For the BSCP manufacturing source category, we exercised flexibility in 
minimizing impacts on small entities through subcategorization of 
existing tunnel kilns by size, which still benefits the environment by 
reducing emissions from the larger kilns. Input from small entities 
within the BSCP manufacturing source category was solicited during the 
data-gathering phase of the rulemaking process.
    In addition, for the BSCP manufacturing source category, we 
contacted the small entities estimated to

[[Page 47921]]

incur impacts in excess of 1 percent of sales to explain the proposal's 
regulatory approach, as well as a potential alternative to installing 
an APCD. Facilities with tunnel kilns operating at or near 10 tph could 
accept a permit condition that restricts kiln production to less than 
10 tph and, therefore, places the kiln in the subcategory unaffected by 
the standards for existing kilns.
    For both the BSCP manufacturing and clay ceramics manufacturing 
source categories, we provided flexibility by offering a choice of 
compliance options. Compliance options include mass emission limits or 
percent reduction limits for HF and HCl. Compliance with the proposed 
emission limits can be achieved through use of a DIFF, DLS/FF, WS, or 
equivalent control device. The various control device options provide 
an opportunity to determine the most suitable and cost-effective 
control option for a kiln given the specifics of the facility site. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed rules will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document for each of the proposed 
rules (ICR No. 2022.01 for BSCP manufacturing and ICR No. 2023.01 for 
clay ceramics manufacturing), and a copy of either document may be 
obtained from Sandy Farmer, by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at 
[email protected]; or by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also 
download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The 
information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    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 emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to EPA pursuant 
to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA's policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rules would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to assure compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the 
collection of information required by the proposed BSCP manufacturing 
rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 
final rule) is estimated to be 7,273 labor hours per year at a total 
annual labor cost of $334,000. This burden estimate includes a one-time 
submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP, with 
immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were 
not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance inspections; 
notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/startup 
costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year 
period of the ICR are estimated at $217,500, with operation and 
maintenance costs of $16,900/yr.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for the 
collection of information required by the proposed clay ceramics 
manufacturing rule (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective 
date of the final rule) is estimated to be 238 labor hours per year at 
a total annual labor cost of $10,900. This burden estimate includes a 
one-time submission of an OM&M plan; one-time submission of a SSMP, 
with immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan 
were not followed; semiannual compliance reports; maintenance 
inspections; notifications; and recordkeeping. Total annualized 
capital/startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over 
the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $4,300, with operation 
and maintenance costs of $400/yr.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    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 EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on either ICR to the 
Director, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies 
Division (2822); U.S. EPA; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, 
DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; 
Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street NW.; Washington, DC 
20503; marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR 
number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 22, 2002, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it by August 21, 2002. The final rulemaking action will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in these proposals.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory 
and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or 
more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an 
agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus 
standards.
    The proposed rules involve technical standards. The EPA proposes in 
these rules to use EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 4, 5, 
26, and 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Consistent with the NTTAA, 
the EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in 
addition to these EPA

[[Page 47922]]

methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified 
for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, and 2G. The search and review results 
have been documented and are in the dockets for the proposed rules.
    The search for emission measurement procedures identified 14 
voluntary consensus standards potentially applicable to the proposed 
rules. The EPA determined that 11 of these 14 standards were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the 
proposed rules. Therefore, the EPA does not propose to adopt these 
standards today. The reasons for this determination for the 11 
standards are discussed in the dockets for the proposed rules.
    The following three of the 14 voluntary consensus standards 
identified in this search were not available at the time the review was 
conducted for the purposes of the proposed rules because they are under 
development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow 
Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 1 (and possibly 2); 
ASME/BSR MFC 12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging 
Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and an ASTM impinger 
method for measuring HCl. While we are not proposing to include these 
three voluntary consensus standards in today's proposed rules, the EPA 
will consider the standards when final.
    The EPA takes comment on the compliance demonstration requirements 
in the proposed rules and specifically invites the public to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. Commentors should 
also explain why the proposed rules should adopt these voluntary 
consensus standards in lieu of or in addition to EPA's standards. 
Emission test methods and performance specifications submitted for 
evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the recommendation, 
including method validation data and the procedure used to validate the 
candidate method (if a method other than Method 301, 40 CFR part 63, 
appendix A was used).
    Table 3 of the proposed BSCP rule and Table 3 of the proposed clay 
ceramics rule list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed 
rules. Under Sec. 63.7(f), a source may apply to EPA for permission to 
use alternative monitoring in place of any of the EPA testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, 
Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 17, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart JJJJJ to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart JJJJJ--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

63.8380  What is the purpose of this subpart?
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

63.8405  What emission limitations must I meet?
63.8410  What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?

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?

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?

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 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--Requirements for

Performance Tests

    Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations
    Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
    Table 6 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
    Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart JJJJ

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 (face brick, structural brick, brick pavers, other brick) and/or 
structural clay products (clay pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall 
tile; or other extruded, dimensional clay products). Brick and 
structural clay products manufacturing facilities typically process raw 
clay and shale, form the processed materials into bricks or shapes, and 
dry and fire the bricks or shapes.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of

[[Page 47923]]

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 new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at a BSCP manufacturing facility.
    (b) The existing affected source is an existing 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 according to paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For existing tunnel kilns that do not have sawdust dryers, the 
kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the only process stream) is subject 
to the requirements of this subpart.
    (2) For existing tunnel kilns that duct exhaust to sawdust dryers 
prior to July 22, 2002, only the kiln exhaust process stream (i.e., the 
process stream that exhausts directly to the atmosphere or to an air 
pollution control device (APCD)) is subject to the requirements of this 
subpart. As such, any process stream that is ducted to a sawdust dryer 
is not subject to these requirements.
    (3) For existing tunnel kilns that first duct exhaust to sawdust 
dryers on or after July 22, 2002, all of the exhaust (i.e., all process 
streams) is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (c) An existing tunnel kiln whose design capacity is increased such 
that it is equal to or greater than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 tph) of fired 
product is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (d) An existing tunnel kiln with a federally enforceable permit 
condition that restricts kiln operation to less than 9.07 Mg/hr (10 
tph) of fired product on a 30-day rolling average basis is not subject 
to the requirements of this subpart.
    (e) Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln is an affected source 
regardless of design capacity. All process streams from each new or 
reconstructed tunnel kiln are subject to the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (f) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development 
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are 
not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (g) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 
previously fired products are not subject to the requirements of this 
subpart.
    (h) A source is a new affected source if construction of the 
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (i) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (j) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


Sec. 63.8395  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before [DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you 
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you 
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the emission limitations for existing sources no later than [3 YEARS 
AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register].
    (c) If you have an existing area source that increases its 
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source 
of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart according to 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Any portion of the existing facility that is a new affected 
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this 
subpart upon startup.
    (2) All other parts of the existing facility must be in compliance 
with this subpart by 3 years after the date the area source becomes a 
major source.
    (d) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which 
construction or reconstruction was commenced after July 22, 2002) that 
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a 
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
    (e) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8480 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8480 and in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.8405  What emission limitations 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.


Sec. 63.8410  What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?

    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) and 
(b) of this section.
    (a) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 
collection system and an APCD and demonstrate that the resulting 
emissions or emissions reductions 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.
    (b) 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.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8420  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). 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) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (d) You must prepare and implement a written operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements 
in Sec. 63.8425.

[[Page 47924]]

    (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 7 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.8425  What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

    (a) You must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M 
plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. 
Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting 
authority upon request.
    (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) 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 process unit and 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 Secs. 63.8450 
and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
    (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures 
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
    (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), 
and (e)(2)(i).
    (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 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.
    (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?

    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) 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 3 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 3 
to this subpart.
    (d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
    (e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (f) 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.
    (g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and 
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine 
compliance with the emission limitations.
    (1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen 
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM) 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your 
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.000

Where:

MP = mass per unit of production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per 
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) 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 any of the emission limits based 
on percent reduction across an emissions control system in Table 1 to 
this subpart, you must calculate the percent reduction for each test 
run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.001

Where:

PR = percent reduction, percent
ERi = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) 
entering the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ERo = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) exiting 
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.

    (h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 3 to this 
subpart.
    (i) For each affected kiln that is equipped with an APCD that is 
not addressed in Table 2 to this subpart or that is using process 
changes as a means

[[Page 47925]]

of meeting the emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must 
meet the requirements in Sec. 63.8(f) and paragraphs (i)(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 (i)(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 
3 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, or out-of-
control periods).
    (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, 
or out-of-control periods).
    (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 temperature monitoring device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity 
of 2.2 deg.C (4.0 deg.F) or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, 
whichever is larger.
    (3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 11.1 deg.C (20 deg.F).
    (5) At least semiannually, perform an electronic calibration 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor 
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor 
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading 
within 16.7oC (30.1oF) of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified 
maximum operating temperature range, conduct calibration and validation 
checks or install a new temperature sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (c) For each liquid flow measurement device (e.g., to determine dry 
lime scrubber/fabric filter water injection rate or wet scrubber liquid 
flowrate), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(5) and paragraphs (c)(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.
    (d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(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.
    (e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity.
    (f) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, 
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This 
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, 
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement Center 
Continuous Emission Monitoring. 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.

[[Page 47926]]

    (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.''
    (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. Record each adjustment.
    (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (g) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 
paragraphs (g)(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.
    (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must 
meet the requirements in Secs. 63.8445(i) and 63.8(f).


Sec. 63.8455  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 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 3 to this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8480(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8465  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for periods of monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, 
and required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times that the affected source is operating. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction when the 
affected source is operating.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality 
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data 
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide 
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use 
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing 
compliance of the APCD and associated control system. Any averaging 
period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data 
are required constitutes a deviation of the monitoring requirements.


Sec. 63.8470  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that 
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this 
subpart.
    (b) For each affected kiln that 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(i)(2) according to the methods specified in 
your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described 
in Secs. 63.8445(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
    (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to 
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These 
instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8485.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate according to your SSMP.
    (e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating according to your SSMP and your OM&M plan. The 
Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a 
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according 
to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.8480  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and 
(c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9 (b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply 
to you, by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your 
affected source before the [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not 
later than 120 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test as specified 
in Table 3 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a

[[Page 47927]]

performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 to 
this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, 
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
    (2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must 
include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section in your Notification of Compliance Status.
    (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each 
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the 
procedure used to establish the values.
    (ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, analysis and 
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance 
and specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8450(f).


Sec. 63.8485  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 6 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 6 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.8395 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 
6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date 
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on 
March 1 and end on December 31.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 
30 and December 31, respectively.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods 
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief 
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the 
report are true, accurate, and complete.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP and 
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified 
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) 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.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not 
using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, 
the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using 
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (4) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in your OM&M plan.
    (5) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a 
deviation.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (10) A brief description of the process units.
    (11) A brief description of the CMS.
    (12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control 
equipment since the last reporting period.
    (f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant 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 6 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

[[Page 47928]]

deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.


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) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that 
applies to you.
    (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
    (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the 
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and 
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 
corrective action taken.
    (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the 
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the 
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    (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 SSMP and OM&M plan, including any 
revisions, with records documenting conformance.


Sec. 63.8495  In what form and 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 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 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 section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in 
Secs. 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.


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 (face brick, structural 
brick, brick pavers, other brick) and/or structural clay products (clay 
pipe; roof tile; extruded floor and wall tile; or other extruded, 
dimensional clay products). Brick and structural clay products 
manufacturing facilities typically process raw clay and shale, form the 
processed materials into bricks or shapes, and dry and fire the bricks 
or shapes.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (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; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an air pollution 
control device 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 air pollution 
control device 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 air pollution control device used to capture 
PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a 
baghouse.
    Kiln exhaust process stream means the portion of the exhaust from a 
tunnel kiln that exhausts directly to the atmosphere (or to an air 
pollution control device), rather than to a sawdust dryer.
    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),

[[Page 47929]]

and as a surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates 
including, but not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, 
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
    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.
    Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to 
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is 
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    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 air pollution control 
device, 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 that 
a kiln is designed to produce in 1 hour. 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 air pollution control device 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.
    As stated in Sec. 63.8405, you must meet each emission limit in the 
following table that applies to you:

          Table 1 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   You must meet the  Or you must comply
         For each . . .           following emission  with the following
                                     limits . . .            . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing tunnel kiln with a    a. HF emissions     Reduce
 design capacity of [ge]9.07 Mg/   must not exceed     uncontrolled HF
 hr (10 tph) of fired product,     0.014 kilograms     emissions by at
 excluding any process stream      per megagram (kg/   least 95 percent.
 that is ducted to a sawdust       Mg) (0.027 pounds
 dryer prior to July 22, 2002;     per ton (lb/ton))
 or including any process stream   of fired product.
 that exhausts directly to the
 atmosphere or to an APCD and
 any process stream that is
 first ducted to a sawdust dryer
 on or after July 22, 2002.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  b. HCl emissions    Reduce
                                   must not exceed     uncontrolled HCl
                                   0.019 kg/Mg         emissions by at
                                   (0.037 lb/ton) of   least 90 percent.
                                   fired product.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  c. PM emissions     Not applicable.
                                   must not exceed
                                   0.06 kg/Mg (0.12
                                   lb/ton) of fired
                                   product.
                                 ---------------------------------------
2. New or reconstructed tunnel    a. HF emissions     Reduce
 kiln, regardless of design        must not exceed     uncontrolled HF
 capacity and including all        0.014 kg/Mg         emissions by at
 process streams.                  (0.027 lb/ton) of   least 95 percent.
                                   fired product.
                                  b. HCl emissions    Reduce
                                   must not exceed     uncontrolled HCl
                                   0.019 kg/Mg         emissions by at
                                   (0.037 lb/ton) of   least 90 percent.
                                   fired product.
                                  c. PM emissions     Not applicable.
                                   must not exceed
                                   0.060 kg/Mg (0.12
                                   lb/ton) of fired
                                   product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Kiln equipped with a dry    a. Initiate corrective action within 1
 lime injection fabric filter   hour of a bag leak detection system
 (DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/   alarm and complete corrective actions in
 fabric filter (DLS/FF).        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; and
                               b. Maintain the average fabric filter
                                inlet temperature for each 3-hour block
                                period at or below the average
                                temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F),
                                established during the performance test;
                                and
                               c. 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 at or above
                                the level established during the
                                performance test for continuous
                                injection systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/   Maintain the average water injection rate
 FF.                            for each 3-hour block period at or above
                                the level established during the
                                performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a wet    a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure
 scrubber (WS).                 drop for each 3-hour block period at or
                                above the average pressure drop
                                established during the performance test;
                                and
                               b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
                                pH for each 3-hour block period at or
                                above the average scrubber liquid pH
                                established during the performance test;
                                and

[[Page 47930]]

 
                               c. 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
                                performance test; and
                               d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber
                                water, maintain the average scrubber
                                chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
                                period at or above the average scrubber
                                chemical feed rate established during
                                the performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                    Table 3 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
           For each . . .                You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 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.                      the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.
                                                                                      If you choose to meet the
                                                                                      percent emission reduction
                                                                                      requirements for HF or
                                                                                      HCl, a sampling site must
                                                                                      also be located at the
                                                                                      APCD inlet.
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A.    2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           part 60, appendix A, as
                                                                                      appropriate, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 2 of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A.
                                     c. Conduct gas          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use 3A or 3B of 40
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A.    CFR part 60, appendix A,
                                      analysis.                                       as appropriate, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 3 of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A.
                                     d. Measure moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A.
                                      gas.
                                     e. Measure HF and HCl   Method 26A of 40 CFR    Conduct the test while
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A.    operating at the maximum
                                                                                      production level. You may
                                                                                      use Method 26 of 40 CFR
                                                                                      part 60, appendix A, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 26A of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A, when no
                                                                                      acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
                                                                                      dissolved in water
                                                                                      droplets emitted by
                                                                                      sources controlled by a
                                                                                      wet scrubber) is present.
                                     f. Measure PM           Method 5 of 40 CFR      Conduct the test while
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A.    operating at the maximum
                                                                                      production level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln that is complying with       Determine the           Production data         You must measure and record
 production-based emission limits.    production rate         collected during the    the production rate, on a
                                      during each test run    performance tests       fired-product basis, of
                                      in order to determine   (e.g.,  of     the affected source for
                                      compliance with         pushes per hour,        each of the three test
                                      production-based         of bricks     runs.
                                      emission limits.        per kiln car, weight
                                                              of a typical fired
                                                              brick).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ a. Establish the        Data from the           You must continuously
 FF.                                  operating limit for     temperature             measure the temperature at
                                      the average fabric      measurement device      the inlet to the fabric
                                      filter inlet            during the              filter, determine and
                                      temperature.            performance test.       record the block average
                                                                                      temperatures for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs.
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the lime      For continuous lime
                                      operating limit for     feeder during the       injection systems, you
                                      the lime feeder         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 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF.....  Establish the           Data from the water     You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     injection rate          measure the water
                                      the average water       measurement device      injection rate, determine
                                      injection rate.         during the              and record the block
                                                              performance test.       average water injection
                                                                                      rate values for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded water injection
                                                                                      rate measurements for the
                                                                                      three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47931]]

 
5. Kiln equipped with a WS.........  a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the       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.
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the pH        You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     measurement device      measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    during the              liquid pH, determine and
                                      liquid pH.              performance 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.
                                     c. Establish the        Data from the flow      You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     rate measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the       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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that      Establish the           Data from the chemical  You must continuously
 includes chemical addition to the    operating limit for     feed rate measurement   measure the scrubber
 water.                               the average scrubber    device during the       chemical feed rate,
                                      chemical feed rate.     performance test.       determine and record the
                                                                                      block average chemical
                                                                                      feed rate values for the
                                                                                      three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded chemical feed
                                                                                      rate measurements for the
                                                                                      three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

 Table 4 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Initial Compliance with Emission
                               Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following  You have demonstrated
        For each . . .               emission      initial compliance if
                                 limitation . . .          . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Tunnel kiln................  a. HF emissions    i. The HF emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.014 kg/Mg        Method 26A of 40 CFR
                                 (0.027 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A,
                                 of fired           over the period of
                                 product; or        the initial
                                 uncontrolled HF    performance test,
                                 emissions must     according to the
                                 be reduced by at   calculations in Sec.
                                 least 95            63.8445(g)(1), do
                                 percent; and       not exceed 0.014 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.027 lb/ton);
                                                    or Uncontrolled HF
                                                    measured using
                                                    Method 26A of 40 CFR
                                                    part 60, appendix A,
                                                    over the period of
                                                    the initial
                                                    performance test are
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    be reduced by at 95
                                                    percent, according
                                                    to the calculations
                                                    least in Sec.
                                                    63.8445(g)(2); 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 HF
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.014 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.027 lb/ton) or
                                                    uncontrolled HF
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    95 percent.
                               -----------------------------------------
                                b. HCl emissions   The HC1 emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.019 kg/Mg        Method 26A of 40 CFR
                                 (0.037 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A,
                                 of fired           over the period of
                                 product; or        the initial
                                 uncontrolled HC1   performance test,
                                 emissions must     according to the
                                 be reduced by at   calculations in
                                 least 90           63.8445(g)(1), do
                                 percent; and       not exceed 0.019 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.037 lb/ton);
                                                    or uncontrolled HC1
                                                    emissions measured
                                                    using Method 26A of
                                                    40 CFR part 60,
                                                    appendix A, over the
                                                    period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test are reduced by
                                                    at least 90 percent,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                     63.8445(g)(2); 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 HC1
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.037 lb/ton) or
                                                    uncontrolled HC1
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    90 percent.
                               -----------------------------------------
                                c. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of fired   part 60, appendix A,
                                 product.           over the period of
                                                    the initial
                                                    performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                     63.8445(g)(1), do
                                                    not exceed 0.06 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.12 lb/ton);
                                                    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 0.06 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.12 lb/ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8470, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to 
you according to the following table:

[[Page 47932]]



    Table 5 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with
                  Emission Limits and Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                 emission limits    You must demonstrate
        For each . . .            and operating    continuous compliance
                                   limits . . .           by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DIFF    a. Each emission   i. Initiating
 or DLS/FF.                      limit in Table 1   corrective action
                                 to this subpart    within 1 hour of a
                                 and each           bag leak detection
                                 operating limit    system alarm and
                                 in Item 1 of       completing
                                 Table 2 to this    corrective actions
                                 subpart for        in accordance with
                                 kilns equipped     your OM&M plan;
                                 with DIFF or DLS/  operating and
                                 FF.                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; and
 
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    fabric filter inlet
                                                    temperature data
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8450(a); reducing
                                                    the fabric filter
                                                    inlet temperature
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average fabric
                                                    filter inlet
                                                    temperature for each
                                                    3-hour block period
                                                    at or below the
                                                    average temperature,
                                                    plus 14 deg.C (25
                                                    deg.F), established
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test;
                                                    and
 
                                                   iii. 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 performance
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF  Each emission      Collecting the water
                                 limit in Table 1   injection rate data
                                 to this subpart    according to Sec.
                                 and each           63.8450(a); reducing
                                 operating limit    the water injection
                                 in Item 2 of       rate data to 3-hour
                                 Table 2 to this    block averages
                                 subpart for        according to Sec.
                                 kilns equipped     63.8450(a);
                                 with DLS/FF.       maintaining the
                                                    average water
                                                    injection rate for
                                                    each 3-hour block
                                                    period at or above
                                                    the average water
                                                    injection rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a WS....  a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
                                 limit in Table 1   scrubber pressure
                                 to this subpart    drop data according
                                 and each           to Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                 operating limit    reducing the
                                 in Item 3 of       scrubber pressure
                                 Table 2 to this    drop data to 3-hour
                                 subpart for        block averages
                                 kilns equipped     according to Sec.
                                 with WS.           63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    pressure drop for
                                                    each 3-hour block
                                                    period at or above
                                                    the average pressure
                                                    drop established
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test;
                                                    and
 
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    data according to
                                                    Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                                    reducing the
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid pH for each 3-
                                                    hour block period at
                                                    or above the average
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test; and
 
                                                   iii. Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                                    reducing the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data to 3-hour
                                                    block averages
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate for
                                                    each 3-hour block
                                                    period at or above
                                                    the average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test; and
 
                                                   iv. If chemicals are
                                                    added to the
                                                    scrubber water,
                                                    collecting the
                                                    scrubber chemical
                                                    feed rate data
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8450(a); reducing
                                                    the scrubber
                                                    chemical feed rate
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8450(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 47933]]



     Table 6 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 limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit) that   Sec.  63.8485(b
                                 apply to you, a         )
                                 statement that there
                                 were no deviations
                                 from the emission
                                 limitations during
                                 the reporting period.
                                 If there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS was out-of-
                                 control as specified
                                 in your OM&M plan, a
                                 statement that there
                                 were no periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out- of-control
                                 during the reporting
                                 period.
                                b. If you have a        Semiannually
                                 deviation from any      according to
                                 emission limitation     the
                                 (emission limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit)        Sec.  63.8485(b
                                 during the reporting    )
                                 period, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8485(d) or (e). If
                                 there were periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control,
                                 as specified in your
                                 OM&M plan, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8485(e).
                                c. If you had a         Semiannually
                                 startup, shutdown or    according to
                                 malfunction during      the
                                 the reporting period    requirements in
                                 and you took actions    Sec.  63.8485(b
                                 consistent with your    )
                                 SSMP, the compliance
                                 report must include
                                 the information in
                                 Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An immediate startup,        a. Actions taken for    By fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction       the event according     telephone
 report if you took actions      to the requirements     within 2
 during a startup, shutdown,     in Sec.                 working days
 or malfunction during the       63.10(d)(5)(ii).        after starting
 reporting period that are not                           actions
 consistent with your SSMP.                              inconsistent
                                                         with the plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                b. The information in   By letter within
                                 Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii).  7 working days
                                                         after the end
                                                         of the event
                                                         unless you have
                                                         made
                                                         alternative
                                                         arrangements
                                                         with the
                                                         permitting
                                                         authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8505, you must comply with the General 
Provisions in Secs. 63.1-63.15 that apply to you according to the 
following table:

           Table 7 to Subpart JJJJJ of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Applies to  Subpart
               Citation                        Subject             Brief Description              JJJJJ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Applicability..........  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviation.  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities..  Compliance date;         Yes.
                                                                 circumvention,
                                                                 severability.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction/            Applicability;           Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.          applications;
                                                                 approvals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(a)........................  Applicability..........  General Provisions (GP)  Yes.
                                                                 apply unless
                                                                 compliance extension;
                                                                 GP apply to area
                                                                 sources that become
                                                                 major.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(4).................  Compliance Dates for     Standards apply at       Yes.
                                        New and Reconstructed    effective date; 3
                                        sources.                 years after effective
                                                                 date; Upon startup; 10
                                                                 years after
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction
                                                                 commences for section
                                                                 112(f).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(b)(5).....................  Notification...........  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).....................  [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        New and Reconstructed    become major must
                                        Area Sources That        comply with major
                                        Become Major.            source standards
                                                                 immediately upon
                                                                 becoming major,
                                                                 regardless of whether
                                                                 required to comply
                                                                 when they were area
                                                                 sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47934]]

 
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2).................  Compliance Dates for     Comply according to      Yes.
                                        Existing Sources.        date in subpart, which
                                                                 must be no later than
                                                                 3 years after
                                                                 effective date; for
                                                                 section 112(f)
                                                                 standards, comply
                                                                 within 90 days of
                                                                 effective date unless
                                                                 compliance extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4).................  [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        Existing Area Sources    become major must
                                        That Become Major.       comply with major
                                                                 source standards by
                                                                 date indicated in
                                                                 subpart or by
                                                                 equivalent time period
                                                                 (for example, 3 years).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(d)........................  [Reserved].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2).................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes.
                                                                 emissions at all
                                                                 times; correct
                                                                 malfunctions as soon
                                                                 as practicable;
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operations and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   .......................  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Plan
                                        (SSMP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes.
                                        During SSM.              emissions standards at
                                                                 all times except
                                                                 during SSM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for Determining  Compliance based on      Yes.
                                        Compliance.              performance test,
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance plans,
                                                                 records, inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(g)........................  Alternative Standard...  Procedures for getting   Yes.
                                                                 an alternative
                                                                 standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Opacity/Visible          .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Emission (VE)
                                        Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(i)........................  Compliance Extension...  Procedures and criteria  Yes.
                                                                 for Administrator to
                                                                 grant compliance
                                                                 extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.6(j)........................  Presidential Compliance  President may exempt     Yes.
                                        Exemption.               source category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Performance Test Dates.  Dates for conducting     Yes.
                                                                 initial performance
                                                                 testing and other
                                                                 compliance
                                                                 demonstrations; must
                                                                 conduct 180 days after
                                                                 first subject to rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).....................  Sec.  114 Authority....  Adminstrator may         Yes.
                                                                 require a performance
                                                                 test under CAA Sec.
                                                                 114 at any time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (QA)   Requirements; test plan  Yes.
                                        Test Plan.               approval procedures;
                                                                 performance audit
                                                                 requirements; internal
                                                                 and external QA
                                                                 procedures for testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(d)........................  Testing Facilities.....  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(e)(1).....................  Conditions for           Performance tests must   No, Sec.  63.8445
                                        Conducting Performance   be conducted under       specifies
                                        Tests.                   representative           requirements.
                                                                 conditions.
                                                                Cannot conduct           Yes.
                                                                 performance tests
                                                                 during SSM; not a
                                                                 violation to exceed
                                                                 standard during SSM.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47935]]

 
63.7(e)(2)-(3).......................  Conditions for           Must conduct according   Yes.
                                        Conducting Performance   to subpart and EPA
                                        Tests.                   test methods unless
                                                                 Administrator approved
                                                                 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(f)........................  Alternative Test Method  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(g)........................  Performance Test Data    .......................  Yes.
                                        Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.7(h)........................  Waiver of Test.........  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(a)(1).....................  Applicability of         .......................  Yes.
                                        Monitoring
                                        Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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].............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with Flares.  .......................  No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(b)(1).....................  Monitoring.............  Must conduct monitoring  Yes.
                                                                 according to standard
                                                                 unless Administrator
                                                                 approves alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(b)(2)-(3).................  Multiple Effluents and   Specific requirements    Yes.
                                        Multiple Monitoring      for installing and
                                        System.                  reporting on
                                                                 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 Predictable  Reporting requirements   Yes.
                                        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        Yes.
                                        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).....................  Continuous Monitoring    .......................  No, Sec.  63.8465
                                        System (CMS)                                      specifies
                                        Requirements.                                     requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).....................  Continuous Opacity       .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Monitoring System
                                        (COMS) Minimum
                                        Procedures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(c)(6).....................  CMS Requirements.......  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8425
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  CMS Requirements.......  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8425
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(d)........................  CMS Quality Control....  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8425
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(e)........................  CMS Performance          .......................  No, Sec.  63.8425
                                        Evaluation.                                       specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-5)..................  Alternative Monitoring   Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Method.                  Administrator to
                                                                 approve alternative
                                                                 monitoring.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(f)........................  Alternative to Relative  .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Accuracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.8(g)........................  Data Reduction.........  .......................  No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47936]]

 
Sec.  63.9(a)........................  Notification             .......................  Yes.
                                        Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(b)........................  Initial Notification...  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(c)........................  Request for Compliance   .......................  Yes.
                                        Extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(d)........................  Notification of Special  .......................  Yes.
                                        Compliance
                                        Requirements for New
                                        Source.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(e)........................  Notification of          Notify Administrator 60  Yes.
                                        Performance Test.        days prior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(f)........................  Notification of VE/      .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Opacity Test.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).....................  Additional Notification  .......................  Yes.
                                        When Using CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(g)(2)-(3).................  Additional Notification  .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        When Using CMS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(h)........................  Notification of          .......................  Yes.
                                        Compliance Status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(i)........................  Adjustment of Submittal  .......................  Yes.
                                        Deadlines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.9(j)........................  Change in Previous       .......................  Yes.
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(a).......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)....................  General Recordkeeping    .......................  Yes.
                                        Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(1)-(v).............  Records Related to       .......................  Yes.
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and
                                        Malfunction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) and (xiv)  CMS Records............  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................  .......................  No, Secs.  63.8425 and
                                                                                          63.8490 specify
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(d)(1) and (2)............  General Reporting        Requirements for         Yes.
                                        Requirements.            reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)....................  Reporting Opacity or VE  .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Observations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)....................  Progress Reports.......  Must submit progress     Yes.
                                                                 reports on schedule if
                                                                 under compliance
                                                                 extension..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Reports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(3)................  Additional CMS Reports.  .......................  No, Secs.  63.8425 and
                                                                                          63.8485 specify
                                                                                          requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)....................  Reporting COMS data....  .......................  No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.10(f).......................  Waiver for               .......................  Yes.
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.11..........................  Flares.................  .......................  No, not applicable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.12..........................  Delegation.............  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.13..........................  Addresses..............  .......................  Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.14..........................  Incorporation by         .......................  Yes.
                                        Reference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.15..........................  Availability of          .......................  Yes.
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 47937]]

    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart KKKKK to read as follows:
Sec.
Subpart KKKKK--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

What This Subpart Covers

63.8530  What is the purpose of this subpart?
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

63.8555  What emission limitations must I meet?
63.8560  What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?

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 
operating 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?

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?

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 how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limitations
Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Emission Limits and Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 7 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 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.


Sec. 63.8535  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a clay 
ceramics manufacturing facility that is, is located at, or is part of a 
major source of HAP emissions according to the criteria in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) A clay ceramics manufacturing facility is a plant site that 
manufactures pressed floor tile, pressed wall tile, other pressed tile, 
or sanitaryware (e.g., sinks and toilets). Clay ceramics manufacturing 
facilities typically process clay, shale, and various additives; form 
the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware shapes; and dry and 
fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to many tile and 
sanitaryware products.
    (b) A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source or 
group of stationary sources within a contiguous area under common 
control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a 
rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 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 new or reconstructed affected 
source at a clay ceramics manufacturing facility.
    (b) Each new or reconstructed tunnel kiln and roller kiln is an 
affected source.
    (c) Kilns that are used exclusively for research and development 
(R&D) and are not used to manufacture products for commercial sale are 
not subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (d) Kilns that are used exclusively for setting glazes on 
previously fired products or for refiring are not subject to the 
requirements of this subpart.
    (e) A source is a new affected source if construction of the 
affected source began after July 22, 2002, and you met the 
applicability criteria at the time you began construction.
    (f) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec. 63.2.


Sec. 63.8545  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before [DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you 
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart no later than [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE Federal Register].
    (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after [DATE 
OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], then you 
must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed 
sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing area source that increases its 
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source 
of HAP by adding a new affected source or by reconstructing, you must 
be in compliance with this subpart upon initial startup of your 
affected source as a major source.
    (c) If you have a new area source (i.e., an area source for which 
construction or reconstruction was commenced after July 22, 2002) that 
increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a 
major source of HAP, you must be in compliance with this subpart upon 
initial startup of your affected source as a major source.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec. 63.8630 
according to the schedule in Sec. 63.8630 and in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations


Sec. 63.8555  What emission limitations 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.

[[Page 47938]]

Sec. 63.8560  What are my options for meeting the emission limitations?

    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) and 
(b) of this section.
    (a) Emissions control system. Use an emissions capture and 
collection system and an air pollution control device (APCD) and 
demonstrate that the resulting emissions or emissions reductions 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.
    (b) 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.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.8570  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations 
(including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except 
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). 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) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).
    (d) You must prepare and implement a written operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan according to the requirements 
in Sec. 63.8575.
    (e) You must be in compliance with the provisions of subpart A of 
this part, except as noted in Table 7 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.8575  What do I need to know about operation, maintenance, and 
monitoring plans?

    (a) You must prepare, implement, and revise as necessary an OM&M 
plan that includes the information in paragraph (b) of this section. 
Your OM&M plan must be available for inspection by the permitting 
authority upon request.
    (b) Your OM&M plan must include, as a minimum, the information in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (12) 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 process unit and 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 Secs. 63.8600 
and 63.8(c)(1), (3), (4)(ii), (7), and (8).
    (9) Continuous monitoring system data quality assurance procedures 
consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.8(d).
    (10) Continuous monitoring system recordkeeping and reporting 
procedures consistent with the requirements in Sec. 63.10(c), (e)(1), 
and (e)(2)(i).
    (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 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.
    (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?

    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) 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 3 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 3 
to this subpart.
    (d) You must test while operating at the maximum production level.
    (e) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(1).
    (f) You must conduct at least three separate test runs for each 
performance

[[Page 47939]]

test required in this section, as specified in Sec. 63.7(e)(3). Each 
test run must last at least 1 hour.
    (g) You must use the data gathered during the performance test and 
the equations in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section to determine 
compliance with the emission limitations:
    (1) To determine compliance with the production-based hydrogen 
fluoride (HF), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and particulate matter (PM) 
emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your 
mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using Equation 
1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.002

Where:

MP = mass per unit production, kilograms (pounds) of pollutant per 
megagram (ton) of fired product
ER = mass emission rate of pollutant (HF, HCl, or PM) 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 any of the emission limits based 
on percent reduction across an emissions control system in Table 1 to 
this subpart, you must calculate the percent reduction for each test 
run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22JY02.003

Where:

PR = percent reduction, percent
ERi = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) 
entering the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour
ERo = mass emission rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) exiting 
the APCD, kilograms (pounds) per hour.

    (h) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you as specified in Table 3 to this 
subpart.
    (i) For each affected kiln that 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 
(i)(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 (i)(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 
3 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, or out-of-
control periods).
    (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, 
or out-of-control periods).
    (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 temperature monitoring device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity 
of 2.2 deg.C (4.0 deg.F) or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, 
whichever is larger.
    (3) Shield the temperature sensor system from electromagnetic 
interference and chemical contaminants.
    (4) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 11.1 deg.C (20 deg.F).
    (5) At least semiannually, perform an electronic calibration 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, conduct a temperature sensor 
validation check in which a second or redundant temperature sensor 
placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a reading 
within 16.7 deg.C (30.1 deg.F) of the process temperature sensor's 
reading.
    (6) Any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified 
maximum operating temperature range, conduct calibration and validation 
checks or install a new temperature sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (c) For each liquid flow measurement device (e.g., to determine dry 
lime scrubber/fabric filter water injection rate or wet scrubber liquid 
flow rate), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(5) and paragraphs (c)(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.
    (d) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (d)(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

[[Page 47940]]

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.
    (e) For each pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity and all 
electrical connections for continuity.
    (f) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (11) of this section.
    (1) Each triboelectric bag leak detection system must be installed, 
calibrated, operated, and maintained according to the ``Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This 
document is available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; Emissions, 
Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission Measurement Center (MD-19), 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This document is also available on 
the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) under Emission Measurement 
Center, Continuous Emission Monitoring. 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 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.''
    (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. Record each adjustment.
    (11) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (g) For each lime or chemical feed rate measurement device, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and 
paragraphs (g)(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.
    (h) Requests for approval of alternate monitoring procedures must 
meet the requirements in Secs. 63.8595(i) and 63.8(f).


Sec. 63.8605  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limitation that applies to you according to Table 4 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 3 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, and malfunction when the 
affected source is operating.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or required quality 
assurance or control activities for purposes of calculating data 
averages. A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide 
valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use 
all the valid data collected during all other periods in assessing 
compliance of the APCD and associated control system. Any averaging 
period for which you do not have valid monitoring data and such data 
are required constitutes a deviation of the monitoring requirements.


Sec. 63.8620  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limit and operating limit in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that 
applies to you according to the methods specified in Table 5 to this 
subpart.
    (b) For each affected kiln that 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(i)(2) according to the methods specified in 
your approved alternative monitoring procedures request, as described 
in Secs. 63.8595(i)(1) and 63.8(f).
    (c) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
emission limit and each operating limit in this subpart that applies to 
you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These 
instances are

[[Page 47941]]

deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These 
deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8635.
    (d) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate according to your SSMP.
    (e) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating according to your SSMP and your OM&M plan. The 
Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a 
period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according 
to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.8630  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.7(b) and 
(c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b) through (e), (g)(1), and (h) that apply to 
you, by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) and (3), if you start up your 
affected source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later 
than 120 calendar days after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you start up your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject 
to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test as specified 
in Table 3 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h) and paragraphs (e)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (1) For each compliance demonstration that includes a performance 
test conducted according to the requirements in Table 3 to this 
subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, 
including the performance test results, before the close of business on 
the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test, 
according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).
    (2) In addition to the requirements in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(i), you must 
include the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section in your Notification of Compliance Status:
    (i) The operating limit parameter values established for each 
affected source with supporting documentation and a description of the 
procedure used to establish the values.
    (ii) For each APCD that includes a fabric filter, analysis and 
supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with EPA guidance 
and specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec. 63.8600(f).


Sec. 63.8635  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 6 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 6 to this subpart and as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.8545 and ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 
6 months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date 
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on 
March 1 and end on December 31.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 
30 and December 31, respectively.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods 
ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, and if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying that, based on information and belief 
formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and information in the 
report are true, accurate and complete.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP and 
OM&M plan, the compliance report must include the information specified 
in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) 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.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-
control as specified in your OM&M plan, the compliance report must 
contain a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was 
out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not 
using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, 
the compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (4) and paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit 
or operating limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using 
a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, you must 
include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.

[[Page 47942]]

    (3) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (4) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in your OM&M plan.
    (5) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (6) A description of corrective action taken in response to a 
deviation.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (9) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (10) A brief description of the process units.
    (11) A brief description of the CMS.
    (12) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (13) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or control 
equipment since the last reporting period.
    (f) If you have obtained a title V operating permit pursuant 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 6 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 permit authority.


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) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests as required in 
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records required in Table 5 to this subpart 
to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that 
applies to you.
    (c) You must also maintain the records listed in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) of this section.
    (1) For each bag leak detection system, records of each alarm, the 
time of the alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and 
completed, and a brief description of the cause of the alarm and the 
corrective action taken.
    (2) For each deviation of an operating limit parameter value, the 
date, time, and duration of the deviation, a brief explanation of the 
cause of the deviation and the corrective action taken, and whether the 
deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction.
    (3) For each affected source, records of production rates on a 
fired-product weight basis.
    (4) Records for any approved alternative monitoring or test 
procedures.
    (5) Records of maintenance and inspections performed on the APCD.
    (6) Current copies of your SSMP and OM&M plan, including any 
revisions, with records documenting conformance.


Sec. 63.8645  In what form and 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 7 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 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 section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the applicability requirements in 
Secs. 63.8535 and 63.8540, the compliance date requirements in 
Sec. 63.8545, and the non-opacity emission limitations in Sec. 63.8555.
    (2) Approval of major changes to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (3) Approval of major changes to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and 
as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major changes to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


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

[[Page 47943]]

additives, form the processed materials into tile or sanitaryware 
shapes, and dry and fire the ceramic products. Glazes are applied to 
many tile and sanitaryware products.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit) or work practice standard;
    (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; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) or work practice standard in this subpart during startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is 
permitted by this subpart.
    Dry lime injection fabric filter (DIFF) means an air pollution 
control device 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 air pollution 
control device 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 air pollution control device used to capture 
PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a 
baghouse.
    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), and as a 
surrogate for metal HAP contained in the particulates including, but 
not limited to, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.
    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.
    Research and development kiln means any kiln whose purpose is to 
conduct research and development for new processes and products and is 
not engaged in the manufacture of products for commercial sale.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2.
    Roller kiln means any continuous kiln that uses rollers to convey 
individual ceramic pieces through the kiln, rather than using kiln cars 
such as those used in tunnel kilns.
    Tunnel kiln means any continuous kiln (that is not a roller kiln) 
that is used to fire clay ceramics.
    Wet scrubber (WS) means an air pollution control device 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.
    As stated in Sec. 63.8555, you must meet each emission limit in the 
following table that applies to you:

Tables to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63

          Table 1 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                You must meet the    Or you must comply
       For each . . .          following emission   with the following .
                                  limits . . .               . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed       a. HF emissions must  Reduce uncontrolled
 tunnel or roller kiln.        not exceed 0.014      HF emissions by at
                               kilograms per         least 95 percent.
                               megagram (kg/Mg)
                               (0.027 pounds per
                               ton (lb/ton)) of
                               fired product.
                              b. HCl emissions      Reduce uncontrolled
                               must not exceed       HCl emissions by at
                               0.019 kg/Mg (0.037    least 90 percent.
                               lb/ton) of fired
                               product.
                              c. PM emissions must  Not applicable.
                               not exceed 0.06 kg/
                               Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of
                               fired product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

         Table 2 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For each . . .                       You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a dry    a. Initiate corrective action within 1
 lime injection fabric filter   hour of a bag leak detection system
 (DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/   alarm and complete corrective actions in
 fabric filter (DLS/FF).        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; and
                               b. Maintain the average fabric filter
                                inlet temperature for each 3-hour block
                                period at or below the average
                                temperature, plus 14 deg.C (25 deg.F),
                                established during the performance test;
                                and
                               c. 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 at or above
                                the level established during the
                                performance test for continuous
                                injection systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/   Maintain the average water injection rate
 FF.                            for each 3-hour block period at or above
                                the level established during the
                                performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a wet    a. Maintain the average scrubber pressure
 scrubber (WS).                 drop for each 3-hour block period at or
                                above the average pressure drop
                                established during the performance test;
                                and
                               b. Maintain the average scrubber liquid
                                pH for each 3-hour block period at or
                                above the average scrubber liquid pH
                                established during the performance test;
                                and
                               c. 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
                                performance test; and

[[Page 47944]]

 
                               d. If chemicals are added to the scrubber
                                water, maintain the average scrubber
                                chemical feed rate for each 3-hour block
                                period at or above the average scrubber
                                chemical feed rate established during
                                the performance test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8595, you must conduct each performance test 
in the following table that applies to you:

                   Table 3.--to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
           For each . . .                You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 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.                      the APCD and prior to any
                                      traverse points.                                releases to the atmosphere
                                                                                      for all affected sources.
                                                                                      If you choose to meet the
                                                                                      percent emission reduction
                                                                                      requirements for HF or
                                                                                      HCl, a sampling site must
                                                                                      also be located at the
                                                                                      APCD inlet.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     b. Determine            Method 2 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 2A, 2C,
                                      velocities and          part 60, appendix A.    2D, 2F, or 2G of 40 CFR
                                      volumetric flow rate.                           part 60, appendix A, as
                                                                                      appropriate, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 2 of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     c. Conduct gas          Method 3 of 40 CFR      You may use Method 3A or 3B
                                      molecular weight        part 60, appendix A.    of 40 CFR part 60,
                                      analysis.                                       appendix A, as
                                                                                      appropriate, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 3 of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     d. Measure moisture     Method 4 of 40 CFR
                                      content of the stack    part 60, appendix A.
                                      gas.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     e. Measure HF and HCl   Method 26A of 40 CFR    Conduct the test while
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A.    operating at the maximum
                                                                                      production level. You may
                                                                                      use Method 26 of 40 CFR
                                                                                      part 60, appendix A, as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 26A of 40 CFR part
                                                                                      60, appendix A, when no
                                                                                      acid PM (e.g., HF or HCl
                                                                                      dissolved in water
                                                                                      droplets emitted by
                                                                                      sources controlled by a
                                                                                      wet scrubber) is present.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     f. Measure PM           Method 5 of 40 CFR      Conduct the test while
                                      emissions.              part 60, appendix A.    operating at the maximum
                                                                                      production level.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln that is complying with       Determine the           Production data         You must measure and record
 production-based emission limits.    production rate         collected during the    the production rate, on a
                                      during each test run    performance tests       fired-product weight
                                      in order to determine   (e.g., the number of    basis, of the affected
                                      compliance with         ceramic pieces and      kiln for each of the three
                                      production-based        weight per piece in     test runs.
                                      emission limits.        the kiln during a
                                                              test run divided by
                                                              the amount of time to
                                                              fire a piece).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a DIFF or DLS/ a. Establish the        Data from the           You must continuously
 FF.                                  operating limit for     temperature             measure the temperature at
                                      the average fabric      measurement device      the inlet to the fabric
                                      filter inlet            during the              filter, determine and
                                      temperature.            performance test.       record the block average
                                                                                      temperatures for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded temperature
                                                                                      measurements for the three
                                                                                      test runs.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the lime      For continuous lime
                                      operating limit for     feeder during the       injection systems, you
                                      the lime feeder         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 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF.....  Establish the           Data from the water     You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     injection rate          measure the water
                                      the average water       measurement device      injection rate. determine
                                      injection rate.         during the              and the record the block
                                                              performance test.       average water injection
                                                                                      rate values for the three
                                                                                      test runs, and determine
                                                                                      and record the 3-hour
                                                                                      block average of the
                                                                                      recorded water injection
                                                                                      rate measurements for the
                                                                                      three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 47945]]

 
5. Kiln equipped with a WS.........  a. Establish the        Data from the pressure  You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     drop measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the       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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     b. Establish the        Data from the pH        You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     measurement device      measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    during the              liquid pH, determine and
                                      liquid pH.              performance 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.
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     c. Establish the        Data from the flow      You must continuously
                                      operating limit for     rate measurement        measure the scrubber
                                      the average scrubber    device during the       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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Kiln equipped with a WS that      Establish the           Data from the chemical  You must continuously
 includes chemical addition to the    operating limit for     feed rate measurement   measure the scrubber
 water.                               the average scrubber    device during the       chemical feed rate,
                                      chemical feed rate.     performance test.       determine and record the
                                                                                      block average chemical
                                                                                      feed rate values for the
                                                                                      three test runs, and
                                                                                      determine and record the 3-
                                                                                      hour block average of the
                                                                                      recorded chemical feed
                                                                                      rate measurements for the
                                                                                      three test runs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8605, you must demonstrate initial compliance 
with each emission limitation that applies to you according to the 
following table:

 Table 4 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission
                               Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following  You have demonstrated
        For each . . .               emission      initial compliance if
                                 limitation . . .          . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New or reconstructed tunnel  a. HF emissions    i. The HF emissions
 or roller kiln.                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.014 kg/Mg        Method 26A of 40 CFR
                                 (0.027 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A,
                                 of fired           over the period of
                                 product; or        the initial
                                 uncontrolled HF    performance test,
                                 emissions must     according to the
                                 be reduced by at   calculations in Sec.
                                 least 95            63.8595(g)(1), do
                                 percent; and       not exceed 0.014 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.027 lb/ton);
                                                    or uncontrolled HF
                                                    emissions measured
                                                    using Method 26A of
                                                    40 CFR part 60,
                                                    appendix A, over the
                                                    period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test are reduced by
                                                    at least 95 percent,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                     63.8595(g)(2); 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 HF
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.014 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.027 lb/ton) or
                                                    uncontrolled HF
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    95 percent.
                               -----------------------------------------
                                b. HCl emissions   i. The HCl emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.019 kg/Mg        Method 26A of 40 CFR
                                 (0.037 lb/ton)     part 60, appendix A,
                                 of fired           over the period of
                                 product; or        the initial
                                 uncontrolled HCl   performance test,
                                 emissions must     according to the
                                 be reduced by at   calculations in Sec.
                                 least 90            63.8595(g)(1), do
                                 percent; and       not exceed 0.019 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.037 lb/ton);
                                                    or uncontrolled HCl
                                                    emissions measured
                                                    using Method 26A of
                                                    40 CFR part 60,
                                                    appendix A, over the
                                                    period of the
                                                    initial performance
                                                    test are reduced by
                                                    at least 90 percent,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                     63.8595(g)(2); 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 HCl
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 0.019 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.037 lb/ton) or
                                                    uncontrolled HCl
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    90 percent.
                               -----------------------------------------
                                c. PM emissions    i. The PM emissions
                                 must not exceed    measured using
                                 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12   Method 5 of 40 CFR
                                 lb/ton) of fired   part 60, appendix A,
                                 product..          over the period of
                                                    the initial
                                                    performance test,
                                                    according to the
                                                    calculations in Sec.
                                                     63.8595(g)(1), do
                                                    not exceed 0.06 kg/
                                                    Mg (0.12 lb/ton);
                                                    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 0.06 kg/Mg
                                                    (0.12 lb/ton).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8620, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with each emission limit and operating limit that applies to 
you according to the following table:

[[Page 47946]]



    Table 5 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Continuous Compliance with
                  Emission Limits and Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                 emission limits    You must demonstrate
        For each . . .            and operating    continuous compliance
                                   limits . . .           by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kiln equipped with a DIFF    a. Each emission   i. Initiating
 or DLS/FF.                      limit in Table 1   corrective action
                                 to this subpart    within 1 hour of a
                                 and each           bag leak detection
                                 operating limit    system alarm and
                                 in Item 1 of       completing
                                 Table 2 to this    corrective actions
                                 subpart for        in accordance with
                                 kilns equipped     your OM&M plan;
                                 with DIFF or DLS/  operating and
                                 FF.                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 take by you to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    action; and
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    fabric filter inlet
                                                    temperature data
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the fabric filter
                                                    inlet temperature
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average fabric
                                                    filter inlet
                                                    temperature for each
                                                    3-hour block period
                                                    at or below the
                                                    average temperature,
                                                    plus 14 deg.C (25
                                                    deg.F), established
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test;
                                                    and
                                                   iii. 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 performance
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Kiln equipped with a DLS/FF  Each emission      Collecting the water
                                 limit in Table 1   injection rate data
                                 to this subpart    according to Sec.
                                 and each           63.8600(a); reducing
                                 operating limit    the water injection
                                 in Item 2 of       rate data to 3-hour
                                 Table 2 to this    block averages
                                 subpart for        according to Sec.
                                 kilns equipped     63.8600(a);
                                 with DLS/FF.       maintaining the
                                                    average water
                                                    injection rate for
                                                    each 3-hour block
                                                    period at or above
                                                    the average water
                                                    injection rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Kiln equipped with a WS....  a. Each emission   i. Collecting the
                                 limit in Table 1   scrubber pressure
                                 to this subpart    drop data according
                                 and each           to Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                 operating limit    reducing the
                                 in Item 3 of       scrubber pressure
                                 Table 2 to this    drop data to 3-hour
                                 subpart for        block averages
                                 kilns equipped     according to Sec.
                                 with WS.           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
                                                    performance test;
                                                    and
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    data according to
                                                    Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                                    reducing the
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid pH for each 3-
                                                    hour block period at
                                                    or above the average
                                                    scrubber liquid pH
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test; and
                                                   iii. Collecting the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                                    reducing the
                                                    scrubber liquid flow
                                                    rate data to 3-hour
                                                    block averages
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate for
                                                    each 3-hour block
                                                    period at or above
                                                    the average scrubber
                                                    liquid flow rate
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test; and
                                                   iv. If chemicals are
                                                    added to the
                                                    scrubber water,
                                                    collecting the
                                                    scrubber chemical
                                                    feed rate data
                                                    according to Sec.
                                                    63.8600(a); reducing
                                                    the scrubber
                                                    chemical feed rate
                                                    data to 3-hour block
                                                    averages according
                                                    to Sec.  63.8600(a);
                                                    maintaining the
                                                    average scrubber
                                                    chemical feed rate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Table 6 to Subpart KKKKK 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 limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit) that   Sec.  63.8635(b
                                 apply to you, a         ).
                                 statement that there
                                 were no deviations
                                 from the emission
                                 limitations during
                                 the reporting period.
                                 If there were no
                                 periods during which
                                 the CMS was out-of-
                                 control as specified
                                 in your OM&M plan, a
                                 statement that there
                                 were no periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control
                                 during the reporting
                                 period.

[[Page 47947]]

 
                                b. If you have a        Semiannually
                                 deviation from any      according to
                                 emission limitation     the
                                 (emission limit,        requirements in
                                 operating limit)        Sec.  63.8635(b
                                 during the reporting    ).
                                 period, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8635(d) or (e) If
                                 there were periods
                                 during which the CMS
                                 was out-of-control,
                                 as specified in your
                                 OM&M plan, the report
                                 must contain the
                                 information in Sec.
                                 63.8635(e).
                                c. If you had a         Semiannually
                                 startup, shutdown or    according to
                                 malfunction during      the
                                 the reporting period    requirements in
                                 and you took actions    Sec.  63.8635(b
                                 the consistent with     ).
                                 your SSMP, compliance
                                 report must include
                                 the information in
                                 Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An immediate startup,        a. Actions taken for    By fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction       the event according     telephone
 report if you took actions      to the requirements     within 2
 during a startup, shutdown,     in Sec.                 working days
 or malfunction during the       63.10(d)(5)(ii).        after starting
 reporting period that are not                           actions
 consistent with your SSMP.                              inconsistent
                                                         with the plan.
                                b. The information in   By letter within
                                 Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii).  7 working days
                                                         after the end
                                                         of the event
                                                         unless you have
                                                         made
                                                         alternative
                                                         arrangements
                                                         with the
                                                         permitting
                                                         authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in Sec. 63.8655, you must comply with the General 
Provisions in Secs. 63.1-63.15 that apply to you according to the 
following table:

           Table 7 to Subpart KKKKK of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Applies to subpart
               Citation                        Subject             Brief description              KKKKK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1...........................  Applicability..........  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.2...........................  Definitions............  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.3...........................  Units and Abbreviations  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.4...........................  Prohibited Activities..  Compliance date;         Yes.
                                                                 circumvention,
                                                                 severability.
Sec.  63.5...........................  Construction/            Applicability;           Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.          applications;
                                                                 approvals.
Sec.  63.6(a)........................  Applicability..........  General Provisions (GP)  Yes.
                                                                 apply unless
                                                                 compliance extension;
                                                                 GP apply to area
                                                                 sources that become
                                                                 major.
Sec.  63.6(b)(1)-(4).................  Compliance Dates for     Standards apply at       Yes.
                                        New and Reconstructed    effective date; 3
                                        sources.                 years after effective
                                                                 date; Upon startup; 10
                                                                 years after
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction
                                                                 commences for section
                                                                 112(f).
Sec.  63.6(b)(5).....................  Notification...........  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.6(b)(6).....................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(b)(7).....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        New Reconstructed Area   become major must
                                        Sources That Become      comply with major
                                        Major.                   source standards
                                                                 immediately upon
                                                                 becoming major,
                                                                 regardless of whether
                                                                 required to comply
                                                                 when they were area
                                                                 sources.
Sec.  63.6(c)(1)-(2).................  Compliance Dates for     Comply according to      Yes.
                                        Existing Sources.        date in subpart, which
                                                                 must be no later than
                                                                 3 years after
                                                                 effective date; for
                                                                 section 112(f)
                                                                 standards, comply
                                                                 within 90 days of
                                                                 effective date unless
                                                                 compliance extension.
Sec.  63.6(c)(3)-(4).................  [Reserved].............
Sec.  63.6(c)(5).....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        Existing Area Sources    become major must
                                        That Become Major.       comply with major
                                                                 source standards by
                                                                 date indicated in
                                                                 subpart or by
                                                                 equivalent time period
                                                                 (for example, 3 years).
Sec.  63.6(d)........................  [Reserved].
Sec.  63.6(e)(1)-(2).................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes.
                                                                 emissions at all
                                                                 times; correct
                                                                 malfunctions as soon
                                                                 as practicable;
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   .......................  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Plan
                                        (SSMP).
Sec.  63.6(f)(1).....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes.
                                        During SSM.              emission standards at
                                                                 all times except
                                                                 during SSM.

[[Page 47948]]

 
Sec.  63.6(f)(2)-(3).................  Methods for Determining  Compliance based on      Yes.
                                        Compliance.              performance test,
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance plans,
                                                                 records, inspection.
Sec.  63.6(g)........................  Alternative Standard...  Procedures for getting   Yes.
                                                                 an alternative
                                                                 standard.
Sec.  63.6(h)........................  Opacity/Visible          .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Emission (VE)
                                        Standards.
Sec.  63.6(i)........................  Compliance Extension...  Procedures and criteria  Yes.
                                                                 for Administrator to
                                                                 grant compliance
                                                                 extension.
Sec.  63.6(j)........................  Presidential Compliance  President may exempt     Yes.
                                        Exemption.               source category.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2).................  Performance Test Dates.  Dates for conducting     Yes.
                                                                 initial performance
                                                                 testing and other
                                                                 compliance
                                                                 demonstrations; must
                                                                 conduct 180 days after
                                                                 first subject to rule.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3).....................  Sec.  114 Authority....  Administrator may        Yes.
                                                                 require a performance
                                                                 test under CAA Sec.
                                                                 114 at any time.
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 (QA)/  Requirements; test plan  Yes.
                                        Test Plan.               approval procedures;
                                                                 performance audit
                                                                 requirements; internal
                                                                 and external QA
                                                                 procedures for testing.
Sec.  63.7(d)........................  Testing Facilities.....  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.7(e)(1).....................  Conditions for           Performance tests must   No, Sec.  63.8595
                                        Conducting Performance   be conducted under       specifies
                                        Tests.                   representative           requirements.
                                                                 conditions.
                                                                Cannot conduct           Yes.
                                                                 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 Performance   to subpart and EPA
                                        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(f)........................  Alternative Test Method  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.7(g)........................  Performance Test Data    .......................  Yes.
                                        Analysis.
Sec.  63.7(h)........................  Waiver of Test.........  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1).....................  Applicability of         .......................  Yes.
                                        Monitoring
                                        Requirements.
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].
Sec.  63.8(a)(4).....................  Monitoring with Flares.  .......................  No, not applicable.
Sec.  63.8(b)(1).....................  Monitoring.............  Must conduct monitoring  Yes.
                                                                 according to standard
                                                                 unless Administrator
                                                                 approves alternative.
Sec.  63.8(b)(2)-(3).................  Multiple Effluents and   Specific requirements    Yes.
                                        Multiple Monitoring      for installing and
                                        Systems.                 reporting on
                                                                 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 Predictable  Reporting requirements   Yes.
                                        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        Yes.
                                        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).....................  Continuous Monitoring    .......................  No, Sec.  63.8615
                                        System (CMS)                                      specifies
                                        Requirements.                                     requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(5).....................  Continuous Opacity       .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Monitoring System
                                        (COMS) Minimum
                                        Procedures.
Sec.  63.8(c)(6).....................  CMS Requirements.......  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8575
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.8(c)(7)-(8).................  CMS Requirements.......  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8575
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.8(d)........................  CMS Quality Control....  .......................  No, Sec.  63.8575
                                                                                          specifies
                                                                                          requirements.

[[Page 47949]]

 
Sec.  63.8(e)........................  CMS Performance            .....................  No, Sec.  63.8575
                                        Evaluation.                                       specifies
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.8(f)(1)-(5).................  Alternative Monitoring   Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Method.                  Administrator to
                                                                 approve alternative
                                                                 monitoring.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6).....................  Alternative to Relative  .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Accuracy Test.
Sec.  63.8(g)........................  Data Reduction.........  .......................  No, not applicable.
Sec.  63.9(a)........................  Notification             .......................  Yes.
                                        Requirements.
Sec.  63.9(b)........................  Initial Notifications..  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.9(c)........................  Request for Compliance   .......................  Yes.
                                        Extension.
Sec.  63.9(d)........................  Notification of Special  .......................  Yes.
                                        Compliance
                                        Requirements for New
                                        Source.
Sec.  63.9(e)........................  Notification of          Notify Administrator 60  Yes.
                                        Performance Test.        days prior.
Sec.  63.9(f)........................  Notification of VE/      .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Opacity Test.
Sec.  63.9(g)(1).....................  Additional               .......................  Yes.
                                        Notifications When
                                        Using CMS.
Sec.  63.9(g)(2)-(3).................  Additional               .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Notifications When
                                        Using CMS.
Sec.  63.9(h)........................  Notification of          .......................  Yes.
                                        Compliance Status.
Sec.  63.9(i)........................  Adjustment of Submittal  .......................  Yes.
                                        Deadlines.
Sec.  63.9(j)........................  Change in Previous       .......................  Yes.
                                        Information.
Sec.  63.10(a).......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.10(b)(1)....................  General Recordkeeping    .......................  Yes.
                                        Requirements.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(i)-(v).............  Records Related to       .......................  Yes.
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and
                                        Malfunction.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii) and (xiv)  CMS Records............  .......................  Yes.
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................  .......................  No, Secs.  63.8575 and
                                                                                          63.8640 specify
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(d)(1) and (2)............  General Reporting        Requirements for         Yes.
                                        Requirements.            reporting.
Sec.  63.10(d)(3)....................  Reporting Opacity or VE  .......................  No, not applicable.
                                        Observations.
Sec.  63.10(d)(4)....................  Progress Reports.......  Must submit progress     Yes.
                                                                 reports on schedule if
                                                                 under compliance
                                                                 extension.
Sec.  63.10(d)(5)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Reports.
Sec.  63.10(e)(1)-(3)................  Additional CMS Reports.  .......................  No, Secs.  63.8575 and
                                                                                          63.8635 specify
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.  63.10(e)(4)....................  Reporting COMS data....  .......................  No, not applicable.
Sec.  63.10(f).......................  Waiver for               .......................  Yes.
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
Sec.  63.11..........................  Flares.................  .......................  No, not applicable.
Sec.  63.12..........................  Delegation.............  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.13..........................  Addresses..............  .......................  Yes.
Sec.  63.14..........................  Incorporation by         .......................  Yes.
                                        Reference.
Sec.  63.15..........................  Availability of          .......................  Yes.
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-15869 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P