Wednesday,

April 16, 2003 Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refractory Products Manufacturing; Final Rule VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18730 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [ OAR   2002   0088, FRL   7462   6]

RIN 2060   AG68 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refractory Products Manufacturing AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for new and existing refractory products manufacturing facilities and implements section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The final rule will protect air quality and promote the public health by reducing emissions of several of the HAP listed in section 112( b)( 1) of the CAA, including ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, hydrogen fluoride ( HF), hydrochloric acid ( HCl), methanol, phenol, and polycyclic organic matter ( POM). Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, effects on the central nervous system, and damage to the liver, kidneys, and skeleton. The EPA has classified the HAP formaldehyde and POM as probable human carcinogens. The final rule will reduce nationwide emissions of HAP from these facilities by an estimated 124 megagrams per year ( Mg/ yr) ( 137 tons per year ( tpy)).

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 16, 2003. ADDRESSES: Docket No. OAR   2002   0088 contains supporting information used in developing the final rule. The docket is located at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, telephone ( 202) 566   1744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Fairchild, U. S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, ( C504   05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number ( 919) 541   5167, electronic mail address fairchild. susan@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the following table:

Category NAICS Examples of regulated entities Industrial ..................................................... 327124 Clay refractories manufacturing plants. Industrial ..................................................... 327125 Nonclay refractories manufacturing plants.

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 § 63.9782 of today's final 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. Electronic Docket ( E Docket). The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0088. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing in the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP Docket at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The Docket Center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 5: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search'' and key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as confidential business information and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which are not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in this document. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's document also will be available on the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg on EPA's Technology Transfer Network ( TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules. 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. Judicial Review. Under section 307( b)( 1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 16, 2003. Under section 307( d)( 7)( B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307( b)( 2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background and Public Participation A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP? B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP? C. How Was the Rule Developed? II. Summary of the Final Rule A. What Source Category Is Affected by the Final Rule? B. What Are the Affected Sources? C. What Are the Emission Limits? D. What Are the Operating Limits? E. What Are the Work Practice Standards? F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits?

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18731 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard? H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits? I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard? J. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? K. What Are the Compliance Deadlines? III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal A. Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards B. Compliance Testing C. Control Device Monitoring and Operation D. Definitions IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments A. MACT Floors B. Emission Limits C. Compliance Testing and Monitoring D. Economic and Environmental Impacts E. Definitions V. Summary of Impacts A. What Are the Health Impacts? B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts? C. What Are the Cost Impacts? D. What Are the Economic Impacts? E. What Are the Non Air Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts? VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Congressional Review Act I. Background and Public Participation 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 sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tpy of any one HAP or 25 tpy of any combination of HAP. The category of major sources covered by the final rule was listed as Chromium Refractories Production on July 16, 1992 ( 57 FR 31576). Section 112( c) of the CAA allows EPA to revise the source category list at any time. After obtaining information from chromium refractories manufacturing plants that indicated that some facilities were major sources due to HAP emissions from the manufacturing of nonchromium refractories, we decided to expand the scope of the source category to include most manufacturers of refractory products. On November 18, 1999, we revised the source category name from Chromium Refractories Production to Refractories Manufacturing ( 64 FR 63025) to reflect the broadened scope of the source category. At proposal ( 67 FR 42108, June 20, 2002), we changed the source category name from Refractories Manufacturing to Refractory Products Manufacturing to further clarify the source category.

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 standards are 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 bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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 the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.

C. How Was the Rule Developed? We proposed the standards for refractory products manufacturing on June 20, 2002 ( 67 FR 42108). The public comment period lasted from June 20, 2002 to August 19, 2002. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and the general public were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and to provide additional information during the public comment period. We offered at proposal the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed rule at a public hearing. One organization requested a public hearing, but it later withdrew the request, and a hearing was not held. We received a total of eight public comments on the proposed rule. Comments were submitted by three industry trade associations, two refractory products manufacturing companies, and two other companies. One trade association submitted two sets of comments. The final rule reflects our full consideration of all of the comments received. Major public comments on the proposed rule, along with our responses to those comments, are summarized in this preamble.

II. Summary of the Final Rule A. What Source Category Is Affected by the Final Rule? Today's final rule applies to the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category. This source category includes, but is not limited to, any facility that manufactures refractory bricks and shapes that are produced using an organic HAP compound, pitchimpregnated refractory products, fired chromium refractory products, and fired clay refractory products. Fired refractory products are those that have undergone thermal processing in a kiln.

B. What Are the Affected Sources?

Today's final rule establishes emission limitations ( emission limits and operating limits) and work practice standards for several types of refractory products manufacturing sources. Table 1 of this preamble lists the affected sources that will be subject to today's final rule.

TABLE 1.   AFFECTED SOURCES FOR THE REFRACTORY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING RULE Refractory product type Affected sources Sources subject to emission limits:

Resin bonded Existing and new curing ovens and kilns. Pitch bonded .. Existing and new curing ovens and kilns.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18732 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.   AFFECTED SOURCES FOR THE REFRACTORY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING RULE   Continued Refractory product type Affected sources Pitch impregnated Existing and new defumers and coking ovens, and new shape preheaters. Other formed products that use organic additives. Existing and new shape dryers and kilns used to process refractory shapes that are made using an organic HAP compound. Clay ................ New kilns.

Sources subject to work practice standards:

Pitch impregnated Existing shape preheaters and existing and new pitch working tanks. Chromium ...... Existing and new kilns. Clay ................ Existing kilns.

C. What Are the Emission Limits?

Today's final rule specifies separate emission limits for existing and new thermal process sources that emit organic HAP and new clay refractory products kilns. Facilities that operate thermal process sources that emit organic HAP have the option of meeting a total hydrocarbon ( THC) concentration limit of 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis ( ppmvd), corrected to 18 percent oxygen, or reducing THC mass emissions by at least 95 percent. The sources that will be subject to these organic HAP emission limits include new and existing shape dryers, curing ovens, kilns, coking ovens, and defumers. In addition, new shape preheaters will be subject to these same emission limits. For continuous process sources of organic HAP, the format of the emission limits is a 3 hour block average. For batch process sources, the format of the standard is the average of the 3 hour peak THC emissions periods for two test runs. For affected new clay refractory products kilns, the final rule includes separate emission limits for HF and HCl. For affected continuous kilns, you will have to meet an HF emission limit of 0.019 kilograms per megagram ( kg/ Mg) ( 0.038 pounds per ton ( lb/ ton)) of uncalcined clay processed or reduce HF mass emissions by at least 90 percent. You will also be required to meet an HCl emission limit of 0.091 kg/ Mg ( 0.18 lb/ ton) of product or reduce uncontrolled HCl emissions by at least 30 percent. If you own or operate a new affected periodic ( batch process) clay refractory products kiln, you will be required to reduce HF emissions by at least 90 percent and HCl emissions by at least 30 percent.

D. What Are the Operating Limits? Operating limits are limits on operating parameters of process equipment or control devices. Today's final rule specifies process and control device operating limits for thermal process sources that emit organic HAP and for clay refractory kilns. For each of these operating limits, you will be required to measure the appropriate operating parameters during the performance test and establish limits on the operating parameters based on those measurements. Following the performance test, you will be required to monitor those parameters and ensure that the established limits are not exceeded. For affected thermal process sources that emit organic HAP, we are requiring operating limits on the organic HAP processing rate and the operating temperatures of your control devices. The operating limit on the organic HAP processing rate requires you to maintain the rate at which organic HAP are processed in an affected process unit at or below the rate measured during the most recent performance test. For sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you will be required to establish the operating limit for the combustion chamber temperature. For affected sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer, you will be required to establish the operating limit for the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed. Also, you must check the activity level of the catalyst at least every 12 months. If you have a new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with a dry limestone adsorber ( DLA), you will be required to monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA and check the limestone feed hopper and feeder setting at least daily to ensure that the limestone is free flowing. You will also be required to document the source of the limestone used during the most recent performance test and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed. If you own or operate a new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with dry lime injection fabric filters ( DIFF) or dry lime scrubber/ fabric filters ( DLS/ FF), you will be required to install a bag leak detection system, initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm, and complete corrective actions according to your operation, maintenance, and monitoring ( OM& M) plan. You will also be required to verify at least once every 8 hours that lime is free flowing and record the lime feeder setting daily to confirm that the feeder setting is at or above the level established during the most recent performance test. If you use a wet scrubber, you will be required to establish operating limits for the pressure drop across the scrubber, liquid pH, liquid flow rate, and chemical feed rate ( if applicable). If you use a control device or technique listed in today's final rule, you may establish operating limits for alternative operating parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator on a case by case basis. You will be required to submit the application for approval of alternative operating parameters no later than the notification of the performance test. You will have to install, operate, and maintain the alternative parameter monitoring systems in accordance with the application approved by the Administrator.

E. What Are the Work Practice Standards? Today's final rule establishes work practice standards for existing shape preheaters that are used to produce pitch impregnated refractory products, existing and new pitch working tanks that are used to produce pitchimpregnated refractory products, existing and new chromium refractory products kilns, and existing clay refractory products kilns. If you operate an affected existing shape preheater, you will be required to control emissions of POM from the shape preheater by cleaning the residual pitch from the surfaces of the baskets or containers that are used for holding refractory shapes in a shape preheater and autoclave at least every ten impregnation cycles, or by ducting the exhaust from the shape preheater to a control device that meets the applicable emission limits for thermal process sources of organic HAP. If you choose to clean the basket surfaces, you may remove residual pitch by abrasive blasting or subject the baskets to a thermal process cycle that matches or exceeds the temperature and cycle time of the affected shape preheater and is ducted to a thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is comparable to the control device for your defumer or coking oven. If you choose to duct shape preheater emissions to a control device, you may duct the emissions to the coking oven control device, defumer control device, or to another thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is comparable to the coking oven or defumer controls and meets the applicable emission limits for thermal process sources of organic HAP.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18733 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations If you have an affected existing or new pitch working tank, you must duct the exhaust from the tank to either the coking oven control device, the defumer control device, or an equivalent thermal or catalytic oxidizer. If you have an affected existing or new chromium refractory products kiln or an affected existing clay refractory products kiln, you must use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times except during periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is not available.

F. What Are the Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits? Under today's final rule, you must conduct an initial performance test on each affected source to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits. In accordance with 40 CFR 63.7( a)( 2), you are required to conduct the test within 180 days after the compliance date using specified test methods. If you have an affected existing or new shape dryer, curing oven, kiln, coking oven, or defumer, or a new shape preheater, and you choose to comply with the THC concentration limit of 20 ppmvd corrected to 18 percent oxygen, you must measure emissions of THC in stack gases exhausted to the atmosphere using EPA Method 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer. You must also measure the oxygen concentration of the stack gas using EPA Method 3A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions From Stationary Sources ( Instrumental Analyzer Procedure). If you decide to comply with the 95 percent THC reduction limit, you must measure THC mass emissions at the inlet and outlet of the control device using EPA Method 25A. For continuous process sources, you must conduct a minimum of three 1 hour test runs. For batch process sources, you must conduct at least two test runs. Each batch process test run must be conducted over a separate batch cycle, unless you manufacture the product associated with the maximum organic HAP processing rate infrequently and it will disrupt production to perform the compliance test over multiple process cycles. In such cases, you may conduct both runs of the performance test simultaneously over a single batch process cycle using paired sampling trains. Today's final rule requires affected batch process sources to be tested throughout two complete batch cycles unless you develop an emissions profile or meet certain conditions for terminating a performance test run before the completion of the batch cycle. If you choose to develop an emissions profile, you must sample THC emissions throughout a complete batch cycle, determine the average THC mass emissions rate for each hour of the batch cycle, and identify the 3 hour period of peak THC emissions. During any subsequent test runs, you are not required to sample emissions outside that 3 hour period of peak THC emissions. During subsequent performance tests, you will have to complete at least two test runs, but you will only have to test during the 3 hour peak emissions period for each run. If you choose not to develop an emissions profile, you may terminate testing before the completion of a batch cycle if you meet certain conditions. For each of two test runs, you will have to begin testing at the start of the batch cycle and continue testing for at least 3 hours beyond the precise time when the process reaches peak operating temperature. You may stop the test run at that time if you can show that the following conditions are met: ( 1) THC concentrations are not increasing over the 3 hour period since the process peak temperature was reached; ( 2) at least 1 hour has passed since any reduction in the operating temperature of the control device ( thermal or catalytic oxidizer); and ( 3) either the average THC concentration at the inlet to the control device for the previous hour has not exceeded 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, or your source met the applicable emission limit at the control device outlet during each of the previous 3 hours after the process reached peak temperature. For both continuous process and batch process performance tests, you must conduct performance tests on affected thermal process sources under the conditions that will result in the highest levels of organic HAP emissions expected to occur for that affected source. You determine these `` worstcase conditions by taking into account the organic HAP processing rate, the process operating temperatures, and the processing times. The organic HAP processing rate is the rate at which the mass of organic HAP materials contained in refractory shapes are processed in an affected thermal process source. If you decide to start production of a refractory product that is likely to have an organic HAP processing rate that is more than 10 percent greater than the rate established during the most recent performance test, you will be required to conduct a new performance test for that product and establish a new operating limit for the organic HAP processing rate. You will also have to conduct a new performance test on an affected uncontrolled kiln following any process changes that are likely to increase kiln emissions of organic HAP. If the source is a batch process source and is controlled with a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you may reduce the operating temperature of the control device or shut the control device off if you satisfy all of the following conditions: ( 1) You do not use an emissions profile and limit testing to the 3 hour peak emissions period; ( 2) at least 3 hours have passed since the process unit reached its maximum temperature; ( 3) the applicable emission limit ( THC concentration or THC percentage reduction) has been met during each of the three 1 hour periods since the process reached peak temperature; ( 4) mass emissions of THC have not increased during the 3 hour period since maximum process temperature was reached; and ( 5) either the average THC concentration at the inlet to the oxidizer has not exceeded 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for at least 1 hour, or the applicable emission limit has been met during each of the four 15 minute periods immediately following the oxidizer temperature reduction. If you elect to shut off or reduce the temperature of a thermal or catalytic oxidizer by satisfying these conditions, you may use the results from the performance test to establish the time at which the oxidizer for that specific source can be shut off ( or temperature reduced) during the production of other refractory products that use organic HAP. For any such product, you must operate the oxidizer at a temperature at least as high as that established during the performance test, minus 16 ° C ( 25 ° F), from the start of the batch cycle until 3 hours have passed since the process reached its peak temperature. You will have to maintain that oxidizer temperature for the same length of time beyond the process peak temperature as during the performance test. For each new kiln that manufactures clay refractory products, you must measure emissions of HF and HCl using one of three methods: ( 1) EPA Method 26A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources   Isokinetic Method; ( 2) EPA Method 26 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Determination of Hydrogen Halide and Halogen Emissions from Stationary Sources   Non isokinetic Method; or ( 3)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18734 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations EPA Method 320 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix A, Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier Transfer Infrared ( FTIR) Spectroscopy. You can use Method 26 only if the gas stream does not contain HF or HCl in the solid phase ( e. g., HF as PM or HCl as PM). You must conduct the tests for HF and HCl while the affected kiln is operating at the maximum production level likely to occur. Each test run must last at least 1 hour in duration. If you have an affected continuous clay refractory products kiln, you must determine initial compliance with the production based mass emission limits for HF and HCl by calculating the mass emissions per unit of production for each test run using the mass emission rates of HF and HCl and the rate at which uncalcined clay is processed ( on a fired product basis), as measured during your performance test. To determine initial compliance with any of the percentage reduction emission limits, you must measure mass emissions of the specific HAP ( HF or HCl) at the inlet and outlet of the control device for each test run. If you have an affected batch process clay refractory kiln, you must comply with the percentage reduction limit. You will be required to test throughout two complete batch cycles unless you develop an emissions profile. If you choose to develop an emissions profile, you must sample HF and HCl emissions throughout one complete batch cycle. For both continuous and batch process kilns, you must measure and record the average uncalcined clay processing rate for each test run. If you own or operate an affected new clay refractory products kiln that is controlled with a DLA, and you decide to change the source of limestone, you must repeat the performance test on the kiln within 60 days of the date when you begin using limestone from the new limestone source. In addition to the procedures previously described, you will be required to follow the procedures specified in EPA Methods 1 to 4 of appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, where applicable. You must perform EPA Method 1, Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources, ( or Method 1A) to select the locations of sampling points and the number of traverse points. You must perform EPA Method 2, Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate ( Type S Pitot Tube), ( or Method 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G) to determine gas velocity and volumetric flow rate. You must perform EPA Method 3, Gas Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight, ( or Method 3A or 3B) to determine the exhaust gas molecular weight. You must perform EPA Method 4, Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases, to measure the moisture content of the exhaust gas. Prior to the initial performance test, you must install any continuous parameter monitoring systems ( CPMS) that are required for demonstrating continuous compliance. During the performance test, you must use those CPMS to establish the applicable operating limits ( e. g., minimum thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature).

G. What Are the Initial Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard? If you own or operate an affected existing shape preheater, an existing pitch working tank, or a new pitch working tank, you must select a method for complying with the applicable work practice standard and provide a description of that method as part of your initial notification, as required by 40 CFR 63.9( b)( 2). For affected shape preheaters, if you choose to comply with the work practice standard by cleaning pitch from basket or container surfaces, you must describe in your initial notification the cleaning method. If you choose to comply by capturing and ducting emissions from the shape preheater to a control device, you must describe the design ( e. g., thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature and residence time) and operation of that control device. For affected existing or new pitch working tanks, you must describe, in your initial notification, the design and operation of the control device to which the emissions from the working tank are exhausted. You also must verify that the performance of the control device is the same as, or is equivalent to, the control device that is used to control organic HAP emissions from an affected defumer or coking oven. For affected new or existing chromium refractory products kilns and for existing clay refractory products kilns, you must indicate, in your initial notification, the type of fuel used in those kilns.

H. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to Emission Limits? Today's final rule requires owners and operators of affected sources to demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation. You must follow the requirements in your OM& M plan and in your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) and document conformance with both plans. For each affected source equipped with an add on air pollution control device ( APCD), you must inspect each system at least once each calendar year and record the results of each inspection. You must install, operate, and maintain each required CPMS to monitor the operating parameters established during your initial performance test. You must collect all data while the process is operational. You will have to operate the CPMS at all times when the process is operating. You must also conduct proper maintenance of the CPMS, including inspections, calibrations, and validation checks. You must repeat any required performance tests at least every 5 years. For each affected source, you must monitor and maintain the organic HAP processing rate below the level established during the most recent performance test. You must also record the process operating temperature hourly. For batch process sources, you must record the cycle time for each batch cycle. If you decide to start production of a refractory product that is likely to have an organic HAP processing rate that is more than 10 percent greater than the maximum organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test, you will have to conduct a new performance test for that product and establish a new operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate. For affected continuous sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you must maintain the 3 hour block average combustion chamber temperature at or above the combustion chamber temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For affected continuous sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer, you must maintain the 3 hour block average temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the corresponding temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test. For affected batch process sources that are controlled with a thermal oxidizer, you must maintain the average hourly combustion chamber temperature at or above the combustion chamber temperature operating limit established during the most recent performance test. To document compliance with these operating limits for thermal or catalytic oxidizers, you must measure and record the specified average hourly temperatures. You must also report any average hourly control device operating temperature below the operating limit VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18735 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations established during the most recent performance test. If you control emissions from an affected source using process modifications or an add on control device other than a thermal or catalytic oxidizer, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by operating a THC continuous emission monitoring system ( CEMS) in accordance with Procedure 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix F. For new clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DLA, you must monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA. You also must check the limestone feed hopper and limestone feeder setting daily to ensure that there is limestone in the hopper, the limestone is free flowing, and the feed rate has not changed. In addition, you must continue using the same source of limestone as was used during the most recent performance test and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed. For new clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DIFF or DLS/ FF, you must maintain free flowing lime in the feed hopper or silo at all times. You also must maintain the lime feeder setting at or above the level established during the most recent performance test and record the feeder setting once each day. You must initiate corrective action within 1 hour of a bag leak detection system alarm and complete corrective actions according to your OM& M plan. For kilns that are controlled with a wet scrubber, you must continuously maintain the 3 hour block average scrubber pressure drop, scrubber liquid pH, scrubber liquid flow rate, and chemical addition rate ( if applicable) at or above the corresponding operating limits established during the most recent performance test. Finally, you must record the uncalcined clay processing rate for all affected kilns. If you operate an affected continuous kiln, you may bypass the control device and continue operating the kiln during periods of scheduled maintenance on the kiln control device, upon approval of the permitting authority. However, you must request prior approval from the permitting authority before taking the control device offline. You must minimize HAP emissions during the period when the control device is offline. You must also minimize the time period when the control device is offline. Unlike scheduled maintenance, a malfunction of a control device must be addressed in your SSMP. As specified in 40 CFR 63.6( f)( 1) and ( h)( 1), emission standards do not apply during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction. I. What Are the Continuous Compliance Requirements for Sources Subject to a Work Practice Standard?

If you have an affected existing shape preheater, an existing pitch working tank, or a new pitch working tank, you must perform the appropriate work practice, and you must document in your Notification of Compliance Status that you have complied with the work practice standard, as required by 40 CFR 63.9. For affected new or existing chromium refractory products kilns and for existing clay refractory products kilns, you must use natural gas, or its equivalent, as the kiln fuel, and document the type of fuel used. During periods of natural gas curtailment or other periods when natural gas is unavailable, you are allowed to use an alternative fuel. However, you must meet the notification requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.9812( f) and the reporting requirements specified in 40 CFR 63.9814( g). You must also incorporate procedures for using alternative fuels in your OM& M Plan.

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

If you have an affected refractory products manufacturing source, you must submit initial notifications, notifications of performance tests, and notifications of compliance status by the specified dates in the final 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 must also include the following in your Notification of Compliance Status: ( 1) The operating limit parameter values established for each affected source and a description of the procedures used to establish the values; ( 2) design information and analysis demonstrating conformance with requirements for capture and collection systems; ( 3) your OM& M plan, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9794; ( 4) your SSMP; and ( 5) descriptions of the methods you use to comply with any applicable work practice standards. You must submit semiannual compliance reports containing statements and information concerning emission limitation deviations, out of control CPMS, and periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction when actions consistent with the approved SSMP were taken in accordance with 40 CFR 63.6( e)( 3). If you operate an affected clay or chromium refractory products kiln and you must use an alternative fuel due to a natural gas curtailment or other interruption of natural gas supply, you must submit a notification of alternative fuel use that includes the information specified in 40 CFR 63.9812( f). You must submit a report of alternative fuel use within 10 working days after terminating the use of the alternative fuel. The report must include the information specified in 40 CFR 63.9814( g). If you operate a continuous kiln that is an affected thermal process source of organic HAP or is a new clay refractory products kiln, and you must take the control device offline for scheduled maintenance, you must request prior approval from the permitting authority, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9792( e). In addition, you must maintain records of all maintenance activities and the time intervals when the control device is offline. Finally, you must incorporate into your OM& M plan the procedures for minimizing HAP emissions when the control device is out of service. For all affected sources, you must maintain records for at least 5 years from the date on which the data are recorded. You must keep the records onsite for at least the first 2 years, but you can store the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

K. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

Existing sources must comply within 3 years of the date of publication of today's final rule. New or reconstructed sources must comply at startup or upon the date of publication of today's final rule, depending on their startup date.

III. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal A. Emission Limits and Work Practice Standards For thermal process sources of organic HAP, we replaced the proposed combustion efficiency limit with a 95 percent THC reduction limit. We believe that the 95 percent THC reduction limit will result in organic HAP emissions reductions that are comparable to the reductions that would have been achieved through the proposed 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit. Furthermore, percentage reduction provides a better measure of the performance of a control device in reducing organic emissions than does combustion efficiency, because percentage reduction is a direct measure of reductions in THC emissions across the control device. In addition, the combination of the proposed THC concentration and the percentage reduction limits allows considerable flexibility in how owners and operators VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18736 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations choose to comply with today's final rule. The available emission data for the refractory products manufacturing industry indicate that sources that are controlled to levels above the MACT floor ( i. e., more stringent than the MACT floor control level) achieve THC emissions reductions of at least 95 percent, and sources that are controlled to levels below the MACT floor achieve THC emissions reductions that are less than 95 percent. Based on our analysis of the data, we concluded that a 95 percent THC reduction represents the level of emissions control that is achieved by a thermal process source of organic HAP that is controlled to the MACT floor level. Additional information on our analysis of the available THC emission reduction data is provided in Docket No. OAR   2002   0088. We did not propose a percentage THC reduction because we believed that testing the inlets of the control devices used on thermal process sources of organic HAP was not feasible for most sources. However, based on the public comments received on the proposed rule, we believe that refractory products manufacturers can measure THC at the inlets and outlets of most affected sources. Furthermore, those facilities that cannot obtain inlet and outlet measurements still have the option of complying with the 20 ppmvd THC emission limit. For the proposed rule, we developed HF and HCl emission limits based on the emission levels that could be achieved by the best controlled kiln in the brick and structural clay products industry. Since proposal, we have obtained additional information on the types of emission controls used in the brick and structural clay products industry to reduce emissions of HF and HCl from kilns. Based on that information, we have concluded that the best controlled similar source for clay refractory products kilns is a small brick kiln that is controlled with a DLA. A small brick kiln is a kiln with a production capacity of less than 9.1 Mg per hour ( Mg/ hr) ( 10 tons per hour ( tons/ hr)). The data indicate that a DLA can achieve HF emissions reductions of 90 percent and HCl emissions reductions of 30 percent. We used those emissions reductions to develop the HF and HCl emission limits specified in the final rule. The revised emission limits for HF are a 90 percent reduction or 0.019 kg/ Mg ( 0.038 lb/ ton) of uncalcined clay processed. For HCl, the revised emission limits are a 30 percent reduction or 0.091 kg/ Mg ( 0.18 lb/ ton) of uncalcined clay processed. For proposal, we based the HF and HCl emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns on emission data for a brick kiln that was controlled with a DLS/ FF. When we developed those proposed emission limits, we made no distinction between kiln size and control options. However, a review of the emission data for controlled brick kilns indicates that kiln size must be considered when determining feasible control options for reducing emissions of HF and HCl. For brick kilns with production capacities of 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr) or greater ( i. e., large kilns), several control devices have been demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing HF and HCl emissions. Those controls include DLS/ FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers. However, for brick kilns that are designed with production capacities below 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr), only the DLA has been demonstrated to be a feasible control option for HF and HCl. With DLS/ FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers, it is necessary to maintain minimum exhaust gas flow rates for effective HF and HCl removal, and those minimum exhaust flow rates are significantly greater than the flow rates characteristic of small brick kilns. On the other hand, the performance of the DLA is unaffected by exhaust gas flow rates through the system, and DLA have been used on small brick kilns. Consequently, we have concluded that the bestcontrolled small brick kiln is equipped with a DLA. We have also concluded that clay refractory products kilns are similar to small brick kilns because 90 percent of the clay refractory products tunnel kilns currently in use were designed to operate at 4.5 Mg/ hr ( 5 tons/ hr) or less, and there are no clay refractory products kilns that operate with production rates greater than 8.2 Mg/ hr ( 9 tons/ hr). For existing clay and chromium refractory products kilns, we are still requiring limits on the types of fuels that can be used in affected kilns. However, we have also included a provision for the affected facilities to use alternative fuels during specified times of natural gas curtailment and during other times when natural gas is unavailable. To comply with this provision, owners or operators of affected kilns must notify the permitting authority within 48 hours following the declaration of such an emergency or the interruption of the natural gas supply. In addition, within 10 working days after the facility terminates the use of the alternative fuel, the final rule requires submittal of a report that details the dates of alternative fuel usage and the amount of alternative fuel used. B. Compliance Testing For batch process sources, we have reduced the minimum number of compliance test runs from three to two. We believe that two test runs are adequate for characterizing emissions from batch process sources. Although we are still requiring a minimum of three 1 hour test runs for continuous sources, we believe that it is unnecessary to test batch process sources for three runs. Under the final rule, each test run on a batch process source will last at least 3 hours, and in most cases a test run will last considerably longer ( i. e., in excess of 10 hours). Thus, even with the reduced number of test runs, an emission test on a batch process source will still require a much longer test period than a test on a continuous process source. Because of the extensive duration of each test run, we believe that a second test run is adequate for corroborating the results of the initial test run, and a third test run is unnecessary. Many batch process refractory products are specialty items that are produced infrequently. Because we are requiring each test run to be conducted over a separate batch process cycle, it may not be practical, and it may disrupt production of other products, to require testing over separate cycles. In some cases, conducting the compliance test over multiple process cycles could require a testing period of weeks or months, thereby preventing the use of the batch process source for manufacturing other refractory products. For this same reason, we have included in today's final rule a provision for allowing owners and operators to conduct both test runs simultaneously over a single batch process cycle using paired sampling trains, under certain conditions. Rather than basing compliance on a rolling 3 hour average, today's final rule requires compliance for batch process sources to be based on emissions over the 3 hour peak emissions period. For situations in which a facility begins production of a new product that constitutes a slight increase in the maximum organic HAP processing rate, we are no longer requiring a repeat performance test. Specifically, if the organic HAP processing rate for the new product is no more than 10 percent greater than the organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent compliance test, a repeat performance test is not required. We believe this change is appropriate for several reasons. The HAP content of some raw materials used in refractory products manufacturing can vary slightly from shipment to shipment, and those VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18737 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations variations may be beyond the control of the user. The net increase in controlled emissions from a source that uses a material with a slightly higher HAP content would most likely be within the measurement error of the test method. On the other hand, if the organic HAP processing rate for the new product is more than 10 percent greater than the operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate, a new compliance test must be performed.

C. Control Device Monitoring and Operation In the final rule, we have added the requirement that owners or operators of affected sources that are controlled with a catalytic oxidizer must have the catalyst activity level checked at least every 12 months and take any necessary corrective action, such as replacing the catalyst, to ensure that the catalyst is performing as designed. We continue to require catalyst bed inlet temperature monitoring. However, we believe this additional requirement is needed because, unlike thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizer performance cannot be ensured simply by monitoring the operating temperature. Catalyst beds can become poisoned and rendered ineffective without any apparent change in operation. Requiring an annual check of catalyst activity will help to identify catalyst poisoning and other potential performance problems before they become serious. An activity level check can consist of passing an organic compound of known concentration through a sample of the catalyst, measuring the percentage reduction of the compound across the catalyst sample, and comparing that percentage reduction to the percentage reduction for a fresh sample of the same type of catalyst. We have made several changes to the monitoring requirements for new clay refractory products kilns. We have added monitoring requirements for kilns controlled with a DLA. Specifically, owners or operators of affected kilns are required to monitor continuously the pressure drop across the DLA, check the limestone feed hopper daily to ensure that limestone is free flowing, check the limestone feeder setting daily, use the same source of limestone as was used during the most recent performance test, and maintain records that demonstrate that the source of limestone has not changed. We have eliminated the requirement to monitor the fabric filter inlet temperature for affected clay refractory kilns that are controlled with a DIFF or a DLS/ FF. Finally, we have eliminated the requirement to monitor the water injection rate for kilns that are controlled with a DLS/ FF. We have also included in the final rule a provision to allow owners and operators of affected continuous process kilns to bypass the control device and continue operating the kilns during periods when the control device is offline for scheduled maintenance. However, the owner or operator must request approval from the permitting authority before taking the control device out of service. The owner or operator must minimize the time periods during which the control device is offline and must also minimize HAP emissions from the affected sources during these periods. The owner or operator must also maintain records of all maintenance activities and the time when the control device was offline. In addition, procedures for minimizing HAP emissions during periods when the control device is offline must be incorporated into the OM& M plan for the kiln.

D. Definitions We have modified the definitions of refractory product and research and development process unit, and have added definitions for dry limestone adsorber, period of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, resin bonded refractory products, pitchbonded refractory products, and redundant sensor. We also deleted the incorporation by reference of the publication `` Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice.''

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments A. MACT Floors Comment: One commenter pointed out that more than 30 refractory products manufacturing plants have closed permanently over the past 3 years. The commenter stated that the MACT floors used to develop the proposed rule are based on data that no longer reflect the current status of the industry. The commenter believes that it is improper for us to use the old data while the industry is in the process of realignment. In response to a request by us, the same commenter provided a list of 35 plants that have closed recently. Response: We have reviewed the list of 35 recently closed plants provided by the commenter and among those plants, we considered only one, the North American Refractories plant in Womelsdorf, PA, to be a major or synthetic area source of organic HAP. However, we were aware of the impending closure of that particular facility before we determined the MACT floors for the proposed rule, and we did not include affected sources at that plant in our MACT floor analyses. Because we based our determination of the MACT floors for sources of organic HAP emissions only on major and synthetic area sources and none of those plants has closed, the closing of the 35 plants has no impact on the MACT floor analyses used to develop the proposed or final NESHAP.

B. Emission Limits Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed combustion efficiency limit has no relationship to the MACT floors for thermal process sources of organic HAP. He believes that the proposed combustion efficiency limit is an arbitrary limit based on theoretical calculations and is not supported by the data. The commenter also stated that we cannot identify any plants that have met a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency. He believes that the proposed combustion efficiency limit cannot be met by existing sources; consequently, the stringency of the 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit will force all affected facilities to meet the alternative proposed limit on THC. The same commenter stated that he has been informed by control device vendors that sources would have to operate well above the MACT floor level of control to meet a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit. Another commenter agreed that the combustion efficiency limit will force the industry to meet the alternative THC limit. Both commenters also stated that most of the thermal oxidizers currently used in the refractory products manufacturing industry would not be able to meet the outlet exhaust gas limitation of 3 percent carbon dioxide that is a prerequisite for choosing the combustion efficiency limit compliance option. One commenter added that sources controlled with catalytic oxidizers would be unable to meet the 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit. The same two commenters also commented on the appropriateness of a combustion efficiency limit. One of the commenters stated that he contacted thermal oxidizer vendors and a trade association that represents control device manufacturers and vendors, all of whom stated that they were unfamiliar with combustion efficiency. They indicated that thermal oxidizer performance guarantees invariably are written in terms of destruction and removal efficiency ( DRE). The other commenter concurred that vendors offer performance guarantees in terms of DRE and not in terms of combustion VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18738 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations efficiency. The commenter stated that he believes that there is no known correlation between combustion efficiency and DRE, and he noted that we also have made that point on several occasions. Finally, the same commenter stated that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources informed him that they do not incorporate emission limits for combustion efficiency in their operating permits. Response: After reviewing these comments, we have decided not to include the combustion efficiency limit in the final rule. Although we still maintain that the proposed combustion efficiency limit could be achieved by refractory products manufacturing sources that are controlled to the MACT floor level, we acknowledge that refractory products manufacturing industry personnel, vendors, emission testing contractors, and permitting agency personnel may not be familiar with the concept of using combustion efficiency as a measure of the control of organic pollutants. In addition, combustion efficiency is essentially an indicator of control device performance rather than a direct measure of emissions reductions or control. There are alternatives to a combustion efficiency limit that provide reliable measures of control device performance and emissions reductions, and we have included one such alternative, a percentage THC reduction, in the final rule. We believe that a THC percentage reduction is a more appropriate format for an emission limit than is combustion efficiency because percentage reduction is a measure of emissions reductions and can be related directly to the MACT floor for thermal process sources of organic HAP. Comment: Two commenters recommended that we consider a limit on DRE instead of a combustion efficiency limit. One of the commenters stated that control device vendors typically offer performance guarantees in terms of a DRE limit, coupled with an outlet concentration limit for lowemitting sources. The other commenter stated that an alternative limit of 95 percent DRE for THC would be appropriate for the refractory products manufacturing industry. One of the commenters evaluated two catalytic oxidizers used at his facility. He concluded that the oxidizers would be unable to meet a 99.8 percent combustion efficiency limit or the proposed THC limit of 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen. However, he believes that both of the catalytic oxidizers he evaluated could achieve a DRE of approximately 95 percent. The same commenter also disagreed with our statement that a DRE limit would be problematic due to the lack of access to control device inlets for emission testing on most affected sources. He stated that facilities can retrofit existing sources to allow for control device inlet testing. Response: We agree with the commenters that a DRE limit, which generally is referred to as a percentage reduction limit in NESHAP, would be appropriate for the refractory products manufacturing industry. Consequently, we have decided to incorporate an emission limit of 95 percent THC reduction in today's final rule as an alternative to the THC emission concentration limit. We believe that percentage reduction provides the best measure of the performance of a control device in reducing organic emissions. Because percentage reduction is a direct measure of emissions reductions, we also believe it is more consistent with the MACT floor concept than is the proposed combustion efficiency limit. Unlike combustion efficiency, we have THC percentage reduction data for several refractory products manufacturing sources. By comparing those data to the MACT floor levels established by today's rule ( see Docket No. OAR   2002   0088), we were able to conclude that the 95 percent THC reduction limit that we have incorporated into the final rule is representative of the emissions reductions that sources controlled to the MACT floor level should be able to achieve on a consistent basis. Comment: One commenter commented on the fact that the same combustion efficiency limit was proposed for several different types of thermal process sources, such as periodic kilns, tunnel kilns, dryers, and coking ovens. He believes that differences in the operation of these various types of sources warrant different emission limits. Response: We considered establishing separate emission limits for each type of thermal process source of organic HAP. However, the MACT floors for both existing and new sources are based on thermal oxidizer control, and the MACT floor level thermal oxidizer operating temperatures and residence times are similar for the various types of thermal process sources. These thermal oxidizers represent relatively high levels of control, and based on their design and operating parameters, we would not expect there to be significant differences in performance levels among them. Furthermore, when the theoretical performance levels of these thermal oxidizers are compared, the Arrhenius equation predicts that all of them would achieve essentially complete control of organic emissions. The available valid emission test data on organic emissions from controlled thermal process sources of organic HAP also do not support making such distinctions in emission limits. Consequently, we decided to establish the same emission limits for all types of thermal process sources of organic HAP subject to today's final rule. Comment: Two commenters stated that the available emission data do not support the proposed THC limit of 20 ppmvd. The commenters believe that the data support an emission limit of 30 ppmvd THC, based on the average THC emission concentration for the available test data on controlled kilns. Response: To determine the MACT floors and the corresponding emission limits for existing sources, we first must consider the number of sources in operation at major and synthetic area source facilities. In the case of kilns that are used to fire refractory products that contain organic HAP, there are fewer than 30 kilns that can be considered in establishing the MACT floor. Under section 112( d)( 3) of the CAA, we must select the average or median of the bestperforming five sources. In this case, the MACT floor for kilns corresponds to the third best performing kiln. To rank kilns in terms of their performance in controlling organic HAP emissions, we needed emissions data for each of the best performing kilns. However, we did not have data on emissions of organic HAP ( or THC as a surrogate for organic HAP) for any of the best controlled kilns. The specific kilns referenced by the commenters are not among the best performing kilns in operation at major or synthetic area source facilities, so it would be contrary to the requirements of the CAA to average emission data for those kilns, as the commenters suggest, because such an average would include data from sources that are clearly not among the top five best performing kilns located at major or synthetic area source facilities. An alternative approach to determining MACT floors by ranking sources according to demonstrated emissions reductions is to rank the sources based on the likely performance level of the control devices in place. We used this alternative approach to determine the MACT floors for organic HAP emissions from thermal process sources. Using the Arrhenius equation, we ranked all of the controlled kilns located at major or synthetic area source facilities and selected the third best kiln as the MACT floor. However, to develop the 20 ppmvd THC emission limit, we did consider all of the available data,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18739 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations including the kiln emission data referenced by the commenters. After considering the design of the control devices for those kilns and the likely variations in emission data, we concluded that the available data support a 20 ppmvd THC emission limit. Comment: One commenter stated that Congress intended MACT standards to be industry specific, and he objected to the use of data for the brick and structural clay products industry to establish emission limits for HF and HCl from clay refractory products kilns. The commenter stated that it is inappropriate to use data from another industry to develop emission limits for the refractory products manufacturing industry. Response: Section 112( d) of the CAA requires us to establish emission limits for new sources based on the performance of the best controlled similar source. The CAA does not specify that the similar source must be within the same source category. To the contrary, our interpretation of section 112( d) is that we are obligated to consider similar sources from other source categories in determining the best controlled similar source for establishing MACT for new sources. For clay refractory products kilns, we concluded that the best controlled similar sources are found in the brick and structural clay products industry. We believe that brick kilns are similar to clay refractory products kilns for several reasons: ( 1) Most clay refractory products are fired in tunnel kilns, as is the case for brick manufacturing; ( 2) in both industries, tunnel kilns are designed to have three temperature zones, a preheating or drying zone, a firing zone, and a cooling zone; ( 3) in both industries, unfired shapes ( bricks or refractories) are loaded onto rail cars and transported through each successive temperature zone through a series of timed pushes; ( 4) both clay refractory kilns and brick kilns typically operate at peak temperatures of approximately 2000 ° F; ( 5) firing times in clay refractory and brick kilns are similar; ( 6) the raw materials used in producing bricks ( primarily common clay and shale, but also fire clay) and clay refractories ( primarily fire clay) are similar; and ( 7) at least one refractory products manufacturer fires both clay refractory products and brick and structural clay products in the same kilns. The HF and HCl controls currently used in the brick and structural clay products industry are a function of kiln size ( i. e., production rate). Kilns with production capacities of less than 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr) are classified as small kilns, and those with production capacities of at least 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr) are classified as large kilns. For small brick kilns, the best performing source is a kiln controlled with a DLA. For large kilns, the best performing sources are those controlled with either a DIFF, DLS/ FF, or wet scrubber. Although DIFF, DLS/ FF, and wet scrubbers generally are more effective than DLA in reducing emissions of HF and HCl, large kiln controls require minimum exhaust gas flow rates that are significantly higher than the flow rates characteristic of small kilns. Consequently, the DLA is the only device that has been demonstrated to be feasible for controlling HF and HCl emissions from small brick kilns. Using the same size classification system, the clay refractory products kilns currently in operation would all be classified as small kilns. All operate at less than 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr), and 90 percent operate at no more than 4.5 Mg/ hr ( 5 tons/ hr). Because of the similarities in design and operation discussed in the previous paragraph, and taking into account kiln size, we have concluded that small brick kilns and clay refractory products kilns are similar sources. In the final rule, we are incorporating HF and HCl emission limits based on the performance of DLA controlled brick kilns. Comment: One commenter expressed concern with how we used data for the brick and structural clay products industry to develop emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns. He stated that we used the same data to propose more stringent HF and HCl limits for new clay refractory products kilns than were proposed for new brick and structural clay products kilns under the proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP ( 67 FR 47894, July 22, 2002). The proposed HF emission limit for new brick and structural clay products kilns is 0.014 kg/ Mg ( 0.027 lb/ ton), whereas the proposed HF limit for new clay refractory products kilns is 0.001 kg/ Mg ( 0.002 lb/ ton). In addition, the proposed HCl emission limit for new brick and structural clay products kilns is 0.019 kg/ Mg ( 0.037 lb/ ton), whereas the proposed HCl limit for new clay refractory products kilns is 0.0025 kg/ Mg ( 0.005 lb/ ton). Response: In selecting the proposed HF and HCl emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns, we reviewed the available emission data from the brick and structural clay products industry and selected the single best performing similar source, which was an individual brick kiln controlled with a DLS/ FF. To select the HF and HCl emission limits for brick kilns in the proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, we used a different approach based on the overall performance of the available control technologies. We reviewed the available data and concluded that the three best performing control technologies ( DLS/ FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers) are essentially comparable in terms of reducing HF and HCl emissions. We also considered the variability in the data and selected the percentage reductions that we believe all three technologies can achieve on a continuous basis according to the available test data. We used those percentage reductions, which were 95 percent for HF and 90 percent for HCl, to derive the proposed production based emission limits from the emission factors for uncontrolled HF and HCl from brick kilns. Those productionbased emission limits were 0.014 kg/ Mg ( 0.027 lb/ ton) for HF and 0.019 kg/ Mg ( 0.037 lb/ ton) for HCl. After reconsidering both approaches for selecting emission limits, we have concluded that the technology based approach that we used to develop the emission limits for the proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP is the appropriate method for establishing HF and HCl emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns. In the proposed Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, we also subcategorized according to kiln size by differentiating between large kilns ( i. e., those with production capacities of 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr) or greater) and small kilns ( i. e., those with production capacities that are less than 9.1 Mg/ hr ( 10 tons/ hr)). For today's final rule, we have incorporated this same size classification system into our determination of the emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns. We have concluded that small brick kilns are similar to clay refractory products kilns and that the best controlled similar source for clay refractory products kilns is a small brick kiln controlled with a DLA. Although there are other technologies that perform well in controlling HF and HCl emissions from brick kilns ( i. e., DLS/ FF, DIFF, and wet scrubbers), those control devices have been used only on large brick kilns. On the other hand, DLA are currently in use on both large and small brick kilns. The available data indicates that a DLA can achieve emissions reductions of 90 percent HF and 30 percent HCl on a consistent basis. We have applied these emissions reductions to HF and HCl data from uncontrolled clay refractory products kilns and are incorporating into today's final rule the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18740 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations revised emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns. The resulting emission limits for HF are a 90 percent reduction or 0.019 kg/ Mg ( 0.038 lb/ ton) of uncalcined clay processed. For HCl, the limits are a 30 percent reduction or 0.091 kg/ Mg ( 0.18 lb/ ton) of uncalcined clay processed. Comment: One commenter questioned the need to establish emission limits for chromium refractory products kilns. He stated that chromium compounds should be treated no differently than any of the other listed HAP. He noted that the use of chromium for refractory products manufacturing has decreased significantly in recent years, and that our own estimates indicate that total chromium compound emissions in 1996 were less than 10 tpy for the entire industry. He also pointed out that the large chromium refractory products facility referenced in the proposal has been shut down. Response: As noted by the commenter, chromium compounds are one of the listed HAP in section 112( b) of the CAA. Chromium, in the form of chromite or chromium oxide, is a principal ingredient in the formulation of many refractory products and is emitted from kilns that fire chromium refractory products. Some of the chromium is emitted in the hexavalent form, which is a known human carcinogen. Under section 112( d) of the CAA, we are required to establish emission standards that are at least as stringent as the MACT floor for all listed HAP that are emitted from major sources. Consequently, regardless of the trend in chromium refractory production, we are required to establish emission limits based on the MACT floor level of control, which for chromium refractory products kilns is the work practice of firing kilns with natural gas or the equivalent. Comment: One commenter opposed the provision in the proposed rule that limits the types of fuels used to fire clay and chromium refractory products kilns. He stated that many refractory products manufacturing industry kilns are designed to use fuels other than natural gas, such as fuel oil, propane, and pulverized coal. The need to use these alternative fuels is of particular importance during natural gas shortages or price increases. He pointed out that during natural gas shortages, residential users receive priority over industrial users of natural gas. He believes that prohibiting the use of these alternative fuels could adversely impact the viability of some refractory products manufacturing operations. Response: We agree with the commenter that the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP should include appropriate provisions for the use of alternative fuels during specified times of natural gas curtailment and other situations when natural gas is unavailable. We consider such situations analogous to malfunctions, which are addressed in 40 CFR 63.6. Just as an exceedance of emission limits during a malfunction is not considered a violation, as indicated in 40 CFR 63.6( f)( 1) and ( h)( 1), we believe that using other fuels during periods when natural gas is unavailable should also not be considered a violation of the work practice standard for clay and chromium refractory products kilns. We also note that operating permits for existing refractory products manufacturing facilities generally allow the use of fuel oil and other substitutes for natural gas in some situations. Thus, the MACT floor for existing clay and chromium refractory products kilns is the use of natural gas or equivalent fuel except during periods when natural gas is unavailable. In the final rule, we are allowing owners and operators of affected chromium and clay refractory products kilns to use alternative fuels during periods when natural gas in unavailable due to a supply curtailment or other factors. However, we do not believe that natural gas price increases constitute such a situation, and the final rule makes it clear that natural gas prices cannot be considered the basis for a MACT floor that requires using an alternative fuel. The final rule also requires owners or operators to notify the regulatory authority within 48 hours after the declaration of natural gas curtailment or the interruption of natural gas supply. In addition, the owner or operator must submit a report that details the dates of alternative fuel usage and the amount of alternative fuel used within 10 working days after the facility terminates the use of the alternative fuel.

C. Compliance Testing and Monitoring Comment: One commenter stated that the requirement to test batch process sources during three separate process cycles is redundant, unnecessary, and burdensome. He believes that it would be adequate to test one process cycle. He pointed out that there are significant variations in product mixes and raw materials from cycle to cycle, and that while it could be argued that testing one cycle is adequate, it could also be argued that testing ten cycles is inadequate for characterizing emissions. He noted that testing during cool down periods, in particular, is unnecessary. Response: We agree with the commenter that testing batch process sources for three cycles of a `` worstcase batch may be unnecessary to characterize emissions and control device performance. Under the final rule, we are requiring owners and operators of affected batch process sources to perform at least two test runs on each of two separate process cycles. We believe that a second test run is necessary to corroborate the results of the initial test run. However, we also note that each test run on a batch process source must be a minimum of 3 hours in duration, and for many batch process sources, the minimum test run duration is likely to be in excess of 10 hours. Thus, even requiring only two test runs will necessitate at least 20 hours of testing for such sources, and we consider a test of that duration to be adequate for demonstrating compliance with emission limits. We also note that other NESHAP, such as subparts U, JJJ, OOO, and UUUU to 40 CFR part 63, do not require batch process sources to be tested for three test runs. We are also including in the final rule a separate batch process testing provision for refractory products that are produced infrequently. In such cases, we are allowing owners and operators of affected batch process sources to test a single batch process cycle using two separate sampling trains simultaneously, rather than requiring them to conduct test runs over two separate batch cycles. Many refractory products that are produced in batch process sources are specialty items that may only be manufactured a few times per year. When such products represent the `` worst case'' in terms of organic HAP emissions, requiring multiple test runs over separate process cycles could extend the test period over several weeks or months. Production of other refractory products could inadvertently be disrupted while the facility attempts to complete its compliance demonstration. We also point out that requiring performance tests on batch process sources to be conducted over no more than a single process cycle is not without precedent; at least four other NESHAP ( subparts U, JJJ, OOO, and UUUU to 40 CFR part 63) require batch process sources to be tested over only a single process cycle. To satisfy this provision of today's final rule, owners or operators will be required to include in the Notification of Performance Test an explanation for why testing two separate batch cycles is impractical. Comment: Two commenters expressed concern with the requirement that the compliance test on an affected source would have to be repeated before VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18741 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations the facility began manufacturing a new product that represents the `` worst case'' in terms of organic HAP emissions ( i. e., the organic HAP processing rate for the new product would exceed the maximum organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test). One commenter stated that this requirement would be costly, time consuming, and could result in disruptions in production. Another commenter further elaborated that production delays could result while the facility tries to schedule a performance test. Both commenters requested that we specify a level for the allowable changes in the HAP content of raw materials and not require a new compliance test when the changes in HAP content are below that level. One of the commenters stated that a level of 10 percent would be appropriate. Response: We agree with the commenters that a new compliance test should not be required when a facility begins producing a new product that constitutes a slight increase in the maximum organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test. We have written this provision in the final rule to allow increases in the maximum organic HAP processing rate up to 10 percent without triggering a new performance test. We believe this is appropriate for two reasons. The HAP content of some raw materials ( e. g., resins or binders) used in refractory products manufacturing can vary slightly from shipment to shipment, and those variations may be beyond the control of the user. Even if the HAP content of the resin or binder is 10 percent more than the HAP content of the same material that was processed during the compliance test, the net increase in controlled emissions would most likely be within the measurement error of the test method. Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to allow increases of up to 10 percent in the organic HAP processing rate without requiring a new compliance test. Comment: Two commenters questioned the requirement for monitoring catalytic oxidizer temperatures at the inlet to the catalyst bed. Both commenters stated that monitoring the catalyst bed outlet temperatures would be a much better indicator of performance. Response: We disagree with the commenters that monitoring catalyst bed outlet temperatures would provide a better indication of catalyst oxidizer performance than monitoring catalyst bed inlet temperatures. Monitoring catalyst bed inlet temperatures ensures that the inlet gas stream is heated to the minimum temperature at which catalytic oxidation will occur. Above this minimum temperature, as temperature increases through catalytic oxidization, control ( destruction) efficiency increases. We also note that the monitoring of inlet temperature must be performed at the inlet to the catalyst bed and not at the inlet to the oxidizer itself. After passing through the inlet to the oxidizer, the waste gases pass through a preheat zone, which raises the temperature to the minimum required for catalytic oxidization. Monitoring must take place between this preheat zone and the inlet to the catalyst bed. We do not believe that monitoring catalyst bed outlet temperatures would be appropriate for two reasons: ( 1) Catalyst bed outlet temperature is more of an indicator of the concentration of organics in the inlet gas stream; the higher the organic concentration at the inlet, the higher the bed outlet temperature; and ( 2) some catalytic oxidizers are equipped with heat recovery units that are located at the outlet of the catalyst bed and can interfere with bed outlet temperature monitoring. Consequently, we have concluded that monitoring the bed inlet temperature is a better indicator of the performance of catalytic oxidizers than bed outlet temperature monitoring. We continue to require catalyst bed inlet temperature monitoring in the final rule. In addition, we are requiring owners or operators of affected sources that are controlled with catalytic oxidizers to measure the activity of the catalyst bed at least every 12 months and take whatever corrective action is needed, such as replacing the catalyst, to ensure that the catalyst is performing as designed.

D. Economic and Environmental Impacts Comment: Two commenters disagreed with our estimates of the annual increase in energy costs that would be associated with the proposed NESHAP. One of the commenters stated that, based on our estimated annual energy costs of $ 569,800 and estimated annual natural gas consumption of 644 million cubic feet ( 644 × 106 ft3), the unit price for natural gas would be $ 0.89 per thousand standard cubic feet ( scf) ($/ 1,000 scf) without accounting for electricity costs. If the cost of electricity is considered, the resulting unit price for natural gas would be even lower. He pointed out that current unit prices for natural gas are considerably higher. The average natural gas unit prices in four States ( Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, and Pennsylvania) for the years 2000 to 2002 ranged from $ 6.34 to $ 6.97/ 1,000 scf and averaged $ 6.37/ 1,000 scf for the four States. Based on data from the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration ( DOE EIA), one of the commenters stated that the average unit price for natural gas in 2001 was $ 4.56/ 1,000 scf. The commenter believes that, regardless of which of these current unit prices are used, the estimated annual energy costs should have been several times greater. Response: After reviewing our estimated annual energy costs, we discovered an error in our estimate that an additional 644 × 106 ft3 of natural gas would be consumed annually under the proposed NESHAP. That estimate was based on the inclusion of several sources that would not have been subject to the final rule. However, we did not use that figure ( 644 × 106 ft3) to estimate annual energy costs. Our estimated annual energy costs were based on the assumption that annual natural gas consumption would increase by 158 × 106 ft3. That figure was derived from the models used to estimate annual control costs, and we believe that figure is accurate. Using a consumption of 158 × 106 ft3 of natural gas per year and a natural gas unit price of $ 3.30/ 1,000 scf, we estimated the cost of natural gas to be $ 520,200/ yr. The difference between this cost and the total energy costs presented in the preamble to the proposed rule ($ 569,800) is the cost of electricity, which we estimated to be approximately $ 49,600/ yr. We agree with the commenters that current natural gas unit prices are considerably higher than the unit price ($ 3.30/ 1,000 scf) that we used to estimate energy costs for the proposed rule. However, according to DOE   EIA, natural gas prices are projected to drop back to their pre 1999 levels within a year and remain below $ 4.00/ 1,000 scf until the year 2020. Natural gas unit prices are projected to average $ 3.45/ 1,000 scf for the years 2006 to 2009, which represent the first 3 years in which facilities will be required to comply with the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP. This average unit price is only slightly higher than the unit price of $ 3.30/ 1,000 scf that we used to estimate energy costs for the proposed rule. Furthermore, electricity prices are projected by DOE EIA to average $ 0.043 per kilowatt hour ( kwhr for the same 3 year period, whereas our estimated energy costs were based on electricity unit prices of $ 0.059/ kwhr Using those projected unit prices for natural gas and electricity, our energy costs for the proposed rule would have been $ 580,000, as compared to the figure of $ 569,800 reported in the preamble to the proposed rule. ( See VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18742 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations Docket No. OAR   2002   0088 for additional information). Comment: Two commenters stated that the proposed Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP does not account for the current economic status of the refractory products manufacturing industry. One of the commenters noted that approximately 40 percent of the domestic steel industry is in bankruptcy, and the steel industry accounts for about 60 percent of the domestic refractory products market. He also pointed out that three major refractory products manufacturing companies are in bankruptcy, more than 30 plants have permanently closed in recent years, and pressure from foreign competition in the refractory products market is increasing. The other commenter reiterated the statements of the first commenter regarding bankruptcies among major domestic refractory producers and the increase in foreign competition. Response: During the early stages of regulatory development, we issued an information collection request ( ICR) to the refractory products manufacturing industry. Our economic impact analysis ( EIA) makes use of detailed facility level data on production for the year 1997 obtained from the industry's responses to the ICR. This information, along with publically available data ( i. e., U. S. Census Bureau), was used at proposal to construct a model of the markets for refractory products that is consistent with market, facility, and company conditions in 1997. Because the ICR provided data only for 1997, we are limited in our ability to update the model completely to reflect conditions in later years. However, for the final rule we have, to the extent practicable, updated the economic model to reflect current market conditions, including: ( 1) The exclusion of refractory manufacturing facilities known to have closed since the base year of 1997; ( 2) the assumption that producers will absorb the full cost of the rule; with only six out of 147 producers affected by the rule and the financial stress on the industry, we assume producers will be unable to increase market prices to recover some of their increase in production costs; and ( 3) the incorporation of parameters from a recent update of an iron and steel model to inform the estimated demand for refractories ( i. e., the demand elasticity, or the sensitivity of demand from the steel market based on market conditions in the iron and steel industry). The iron and steel model was specifically revised to address current conditions in the steel industry. We also acknowledged in the EIA at proposal that both steel and refractory manufacturing companies are currently under financial stress. In the EIA, we discussed several trends that have placed considerable pressure on refractory manufacturers, including reduced production by integrated domestic steelmakers, improved quality of refractories ( thus requiring less frequent replacement), and increased imports of refractory products. We note that the vast majority of facilities in the industry ( both foreign and domestic producers) are unaffected by the rule. The regulatory costs of the rule are approximately $ 2 million per year, which represents a small share of total industry production costs of approximately $ 2,300 million per year. In the model for the final rule, prices are not predicted to change, and the quantities of refractories produced are projected to decrease by 3,792 tons. It is assumed that the loss in domestic production will be absorbed by foreign imports. Our analysis concludes these six facilities incurring regulatory costs will absorb the majority of the costs and burden of the rule, with one facility projected to close as a result of the rule. At the parent company level, the costs uniformly are less than 1 percent of baseline corporate sales. Overall, we have adjusted the economic model to address the issues raised by the commenters, and we believe that the final rule will have a limited impact on the refractory products manufacturing industry.

E. Definitions Comment: Two commenters commented on how the term refractory product is defined in the proposed rule. Both commenters stated that, based on this definition, some graphite manufacturing sources could be confused with certain refractory products manufacturing sources that would be affected by the final rule. It is their understanding that we intend to develop a separate NESHAP for the graphite manufacturing industry, and graphite manufacturing sources, although similar to some refractory products manufacturing sources, would not be subject to the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The commenters suggested adding the phrase, ``. . . containing less than 50 percent carbon'' to the definition of refractory product. Response: We agree with the commenters that the definition of refractory product in the proposed rule could inadvertently affect certain graphite manufacturing sources. Consequently, we have written the definition as requested by the commenters. In addition, we are including a definition for pitch bonded refractory products in the final rule. We believe that definition will help to preclude graphite baking ovens, which are not subject to today's final rule, from being classified as pitch bonded curing ovens, which are regulated under today's final rule. Comment: One commenter commented on how the term research and development process unit is defined in the proposed rule. The commenter stated that the proposed definition is inconsistent with the definition of research and development facilities specified in section 112( c)( 7) of the CAA, 40 CFR 63.41, and several other NESHAP published in 40 CFR part 63. The difference between those definitions and the proposed definition specified in the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP is the exclusion of the phrase `` in a de minimis manner'' from the proposed rule. Response: We agree with the commenter that the definition of research and development process unit in the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP should be consistent with the definition of research facilities in the CAA and in other rules. We have written the definition of research and development process unit as suggested by the commenter.

V. Summary of Impacts A. What Are the Health Impacts?

The HAP that will be controlled by today's final rule are associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health disorders ( e. g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucous membranes, gastrointestinal effects, and damage to the kidneys and liver) and acute health disorders ( e. g., respiratory irritation and central nervous system effects such as drowsiness, headache, and nausea). The EPA has classified two of the HAP ( formaldehyde and POM) as probable human carcinogens. The EPA does not have the type of current detailed data on each of the facilities and the people living around the facilities covered by today's final rule for this source category that would be necessary to conduct an analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health effects. Therefore, EPA does not know the extent to which the adverse health effects described above occur in the populations surrounding VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18743 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, and today's final rule reduces emissions, subsequent exposures will be reduced. Following is a discussion of the health effects of seven HAP: ethylene glycol, formaldehyde, HF, HCl, methanol, phenol, and POM. Although today's rule will reduce emissions of HF and HCl from any new clay refractory product kilns that emit these HAP, it will not reduce emissions of these HAP from existing kilns. We estimate that emissions of methanol from affected existing thermal process sources of organic HAP ( i. e., shape dryers, curing ovens, and kilns) also will not be reduced by today's final rule. However, methanol is a constituent of some resins used in resin bonded refractory production, and today's final rule will regulate methanol emissions from any affected source that produces refractory products made with resins that contain methanol.

Ethylene Glycol Acute ( short term) exposure of humans to ethylene glycol by ingesting large quantities causes central nervous system depression ( including drowsiness and respiratory failure), gastrointestinal upset, cardiopulmonary effects, and renal damage. The only effects noted in the one available study of humans acutely exposed to low levels of ethylene glycol by inhalation were throat and upper respiratory tract irritation. Rats and mice exposed chronically ( long term) to ethylene glycol in their diet exhibited signs of kidney toxicity and liver effects. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of ethylene glycol in humans, but several studies of rodents have shown ethylene glycol to be fetotoxic. The EPA has not classified ethylene glycol for carcinogenicity.

Formaldehyde Both acute and chronic exposure to formaldehyde irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and may cause coughing, chest pains, and bronchitis. Reproductive effects, such as menstrual disorders and pregnancy problems, have been reported in female workers exposed to formaldehyde. Limited human studies have reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. The EPA considers formaldehyde a probable human carcinogen ( Group B2). Hydrogen Fluoride Acute inhalation exposure to gaseous HF can cause severe respiratory damage in humans, including severe irritation and pulmonary edema. Chronic 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. The EPA has not classified HF for carcinogenicity.

Hydrogen Chloride Hydrogen chloride, also called hydrochloric acid, is corrosive to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Acute inhalation exposure may cause eye, nose, and respiratory tract irritation and inflammation and pulmonary edema in humans. Chronic occupational exposure to HCl has been reported to cause gastritis, bronchitis, and dermatitis in workers. Prolonged exposure to low concentrations may also cause dental discoloration and erosion. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of HCl in humans. In rats exposed to HCl by inhalation, altered estrus cycles have been reported in females, and increased fetal mortality and decreased fetal weight have been reported in offspring. The EPA has not classified HCl for carcinogenicity.

Methanol Acute or chronic exposure of humans to methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision, headache, dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in humans. Birth defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and mice exposed to methanol by inhalation. A methanol inhalation study using rhesus monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and limited evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. The EPA has not classified methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.

Phenol Acute inhalation and dermal exposure to phenol is highly irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes in humans. Oral exposure to small amounts of phenol may cause irregular breathing, muscular weakness and tremors, coma, and respiratory arrest at lethal concentrations. Anorexia, progressive weight loss, diarrhea, vertigo, salivation, and a dark coloration of the urine have been reported in chronically exposed humans. Gastrointestinal irritation and blood and liver effects have also been reported. No studies of developmental or reproductive effects of phenol in humans are available, but animal studies have reported reduced fetal body weights, growth retardation, and abnormal development in the offspring of animals exposed to phenol by the oral route. The EPA has classified phenol in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

Polycyclic Organic Matter The term polycyclic organic matter defines a broad class of compounds that includes the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon ( PAH) compounds, of which benzo[ a] pyrene is a member. Dermal exposures to mixtures of PAH cause skin disorders in humans and animals. No information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects of POM in humans, but animal studies have reported that oral exposure to benzo[ a] pyrene causes reproductive and developmental effects. Human studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to POMbearing mixtures including coke oven emissions, roofing tar emissions, and cigarette smoke. Animal studies have reported respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to benzo[ a] pyrene and forestomach tumors, leukemia, and lung tumors from oral exposure to benzo[ a] pyrene. The EPA has classified seven PAH compounds ( benzo[ a] pyrene, benz[ a] anthracene, chrysene, benzo[ b] fluoranthene, benzo[ k] fluoranthene, dibenz[ a, h] anthracene, and indeno[ 1,2,3 cd] pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.

B. What Are the Air Emission Reduction Impacts? At the current level of control and 1996 production levels, we estimate nationwide emissions of HAP from the refractory products manufacturing industry to be about 246 Mg/ yr ( 271 tpy). For the eight refractory products facilities that we estimate to be major sources, baseline annual HAP emissions are about 153 Mg/ yr ( 169 tpy). We estimate that today's final rule will reduce nationwide HAP emissions by about 124 Mg/ yr ( 137 tpy). Among the major sources, POM emissions account for approximately 60 percent of the total annual HAP emissions. Phenol, HF, HCl, and ethylene glycol account for 13 percent, 10 percent, 7 percent, and 7 percent of total annual HAP emissions,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18744 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations respectively. Formaldehyde and chromium compounds each account for less than 1 percent of total baseline annual HAP emissions. Today's final rule will reduce annual POM emissions by as much as 90 Mg/ yr ( 99 tpy). Emissions of phenol and ethylene glycol will be reduced by approximately 19 Mg/ yr ( 21 tons/ year) and 11 Mg/ yr ( 12 tpy), respectively. Implementing today's rule will also reduce volatile organic compound ( VOC) and carbon monoxide ( CO) emissions by 166 Mg/ yr ( 182 tpy) and 71 Mg/ yr ( 78 tpy), respectively. The final rule will result in an increase in annual nitrogen oxides ( NOX) emissions of about 79 Mg/ yr ( 87 tpy) due to the operation of additional thermal oxidizers to control organic HAP emissions. Indirect or secondary air impacts of today's final rule result from increased electricity usage associated with operation of control devices required by the rule. Assuming that affected plants will purchase electricity from a power plant, we estimate that the final rule will result in increases of secondary emissions of criteria pollutants, including particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter ( PM   10), sulfur dioxide ( SO2), NOX, and CO from power plants. Under today's final rule, secondary PM   10 emissions will increase by 0.22 Mg/ yr ( 0.24 tpy); secondary SO2 emissions will increase by about 8.9 Mg/ yr ( 9.8 tpy); secondary NOX emissions will increase about 4.5 Mg/ yr ( 4.9 tpy); and secondary CO emissions will increase by about 0.15 Mg/ yr ( 0.16 tpy). We estimate that there will be no new sources within the refractory products manufacturing industry within the next 3 years. Therefore, we are not projecting air impacts for new sources under today's final rule.

C. What Are the Cost Impacts? The estimated total capital costs of today's final rule are $ 4.6 million. These capital costs apply to existing sources and include the costs to purchase and install thermal oxidizers on affected sources that are not currently controlled. The estimated annualized cost of today's final rule is $ 2.3 million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance expenses, performance testing, and recordkeeping and reporting costs.

D. What Are the Economic Impacts? Given the estimated costs to comply with the regulation, we prepared an economic analysis to evaluate how these costs would impact producers and consumers of refractories, and society as a whole. The refractory products manufacturing industry currently consists of 147 establishments. There are eight major sources in the industry affected by the rule, six of which will incur costs to reduce emissions and report compliance, and two of which only incur minor recordkeeping and reporting costs. In recent years, the industry has experienced substantial financial stress that coincides with the decline in the steel industry, which is a major consumer of refractory products. Since our analysis at proposal, the number of facilities in operation has decreased by 14 due to bankruptcies or closures. The industry consists of three market sectors, including: bricks and shapes, monolithics, and RCF. In 1997, the industry produced about two million tons of bricks and shapes, 870,000 tons of monolithics, and about 34,000 tons of RCF for a total market value of approximately two billion dollars. The total annualized regulatory compliance cost of the rule is $ 2.3 million ( in 1998 dollars), which represents 0.001 percent of total market value. Because foreign competition currently has a strong influence on this industry, and only six out of 147 producers are affected by the rule, our analysis of the final rule assumes that producers of bricks and shapes will not be able to increase prices to recover a portion of the compliance costs. Thus, these producers are assumed to absorb the full cost of the regulation, which represents the maximum potential impact on producers. If prices happen to rise as a result of the regulation, impacts on producers will be lower than reported here. Our analysis predicts that domestic production of bricks and shapes will decrease by approximately 4,000 tons ( or 2/ 10ths of one percent). Foreign imports are assumed to absorb this loss in domestic production, which represents approximately two percent of total foreign imports. The monolithics and RCF sectors of the market are not subject to the rule and thus no price or production level changes are predicted. After accounting for the changes in the market for refractories and the increase in foreign imports, the total cost of the regulation on society as a whole is approximately $ 2 million. Of the eight plants affected by the rule, one facility may close due to regulatory costs. The estimated regulatory cost to this facility assumes the use of add on controls, which would exceed the total revenues of this facility, hence our model estimates that it would close. However, we recognize that this facility, as well as the other affected facilities, have several options to change input materials, or attributes of their production process such that they could substantially reduce the cost associated with add on control technology. Without explicit knowledge of decisions to be made by this and other facilities in response to the regulation, our analysis assumes that only add on control technology will be installed.

E. What Are the Non Air Quality Environmental and Energy Impacts?

To comply with today's final rule, we expect that affected facilities will control organic HAP emissions by installing and operating thermal oxidizers. Therefore, we project that today's rule will have no water or solid waste impacts. Energy impacts consist of the electricity and fuel needed to operate control devices and other equipment that are required under the final rule. Assuming that affected facilities comply with the final rule by installing and operating thermal oxidizers, we project that today's final rule will increase overall energy demand ( i. e., electricity and natural gas) by about 280 thousand gigajoules per year ( 265 billion British thermal units per year). Electricity requirements are expected to increase by about 1,570 megawatt hours per year under today's rule. Natural gas requirements are expected to increase by about 7 million cubic meters per year ( 250 million cubic feet per year) under today's final rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 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,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18745 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations or loan programs, or the rights and obligation 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 this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria applies to this action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the final rule 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 ( ICR No. 2040.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( MD   2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by e mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov; or by calling ( 202) 566   1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not enforceable 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. With two exceptions, the final rule will not require any notifications, reports, or recordkeeping beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The first exception applies to facilities that operate sources that are subject to limits on the type of fuel used. In such cases, the owner or operator may use an alternative fuel under certain conditions but must submit a notification before using the alternative fuel, must report on alternative fuel use after terminating use of the alternative fuel, and must maintain records of alternative fuel use. The second exception pertains to continuous kilns; the final rule requires reporting and recordkeeping whenever the control device used on a continuous kiln is taken offline for scheduled maintenance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 726 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 31,460. This burden estimate includes time for acquisition, installation, and use of monitoring technology and systems; preparation and a one time submission of an SSMP, with immediate reports for any event when the procedures in the plan were not followed; preparation of an OM& M plan; one time notifications; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total annualized capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements ( e. g., costs for hiring performance test contractors and purchase of monitoring and file storage equipment) over the 3 year period of the ICR are estimated at $ 45,390, with operation and maintenance costs of $ 910/ 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 current valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule. The EPA has also determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of assessing the impact of today's rule on small entities, small entities are defined as: ( 1) A small business whose parent company has fewer than 500 employees, according to Small Business Administration size standards established under the NAICS for the industries affected by today's rule; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government or a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We have determined that of the six facilities affected by the rule, there is one facility owned by a small company that will experience an impact of less than onehalf of one percent (< 0.50 percent) of company sales. Although the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the rule on small entities. However, we were unable to identify any specific requirements of the final rule that we could relax to reduce the burden of today's rule on small entities. If the final rule had established emission limits more stringent than the MACT floor, we could have reduced the stringency of the emission limits for small entities. However, the emission limits established by today's rule are based on the MACT floor, which is the minimum level of stringency allowed under section 112 of the CAA. Today's rule does provide two options for owners and operators of affected thermal process sources of organic HAP. Thus, the one small entity that is affected by today's rule can choose to comply with either of two organic HAP emission limits. Having the choice between compliance options will provide small business with some measure of flexibility in how it chooses to comply with the final rule. Today's rule requires continuous parameter monitoring rather than continuous emission monitoring. We believe that the parameter monitoring requirements we have incorporated in the final rule satisfy the requirements of section 114( a)( 3) of the CAA for enhanced monitoring without the additional expense that would have been associated with continuous emission monitoring. Finally, the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of today's rule are consistent with the requirements of the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63. For these reasons, we believe that today's rule satisfies the requirements of VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 14: 42 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APR2. SGM 16APR2 18746 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Rules and Regulations the CAA without imposing any unnecessary burden on small businesses or any other affected entity.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law No. 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, 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 costeffective 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 today's final rule does 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 maximum total annual cost of today's final rule for any year has been estimated to be approximately $ 2.3 million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that this final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. 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.'' The final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities is owned or operated by State governments, and the rule requirements will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the rule.

F. 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 9, 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.'' The final rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate refractory products manufacturing facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule. G. 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 an 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, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives that EPA considered. 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. Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater stringency at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, the final rule has been determined not to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Today's final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.