[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 221 (Friday, November 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66045-66096]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24100]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148; FRL-7527-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AU67

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Refractory Products Manufacturing Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found
the risks due to emissions of air toxics from this source category to
be acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health. As a result, the Agency is making no
revisions to the emission limits for this source category based on the
residual risk. In our technology review, after reviewing developments
in practices, processes, and control technologies, the EPA determined
that no revisions to the numeric emission limits is necessary. However,
the EPA is revising certain work practice provisions based on the
technology review. These final amendments also include new provisions
for certain hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and a revision of the
alternative fuel provisions. In addition, the Agency is taking final
action on the proposed amendments for the source category to address
emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM);
emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance; electronic reporting
of notification of compliance status (NOCS) reports, performance test
results, and performance evaluation results; the addition of test
methods and guidance materials; updates to several test methods; and
other miscellaneous clarifying and technical corrections.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 19, 2021. The
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November
19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0148. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov/, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday.
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and
the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Ms. Paula Deselich Hirtz, Minerals and Manufacturing Group,
Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address: [email protected]. For
specific information regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact
Mr. Chris Sarsony, Health and Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. The
Agency uses multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this
list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and
for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and
acronyms below. Also, throughout this preamble the terms ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' mean the EPA.

BLD bag leak detection
CAA Clean Air Act
CRA Congressional Review Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FTIR Fourier Transform Infrared
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
lb/hr pounds per hour
MACT maximum achievable control technology
HCl hydrogen chloride
HF hydrogen fluoride
Hg mercury
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies
NEI National Emission Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NOCS notification of compliance status
OM&M operation, maintenance, and monitoring
OPL operating parameter limit
PDF portable document format
PM Particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
ppmvd per million by volume, dry basis
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR risk and technology review
SSI Sewage Sludge Incinerator
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons per year
TOSHI target organ specific hazard index
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
[mu]g/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
[mu]g/Nm\3\ micrograms per normal cubic meter
UPL upper prediction limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards
VE visible emissions
XML extensible markup language

    Background information. On January 14, 2021, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Refractory Manufacturing Products NESHAP based on our
RTR (86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021). In this action, we are finalizing
decisions and revisions for the rule. We summarize some of the more
significant comments we timely received regarding the proposed rule and
provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is
available in the document titled Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rule: National Emission Standards for HAP from
Refractory Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments, located in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148. A ``track changes'' version of the
regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is
available in the docket.

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

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category
and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source
category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category in our January 14, 2021 RTR proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source
category?
    D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM)?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category
    C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) Amendments for the Refractory
Products Manufacturing Source Category
    D. SSM Amendments for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category
    E. Electronic Reporting Amendments for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing Source Category
    F. Technical Amendments for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing Source Category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR
part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Refractory Products Manufacturing, the source
category that is the subject of this final action, is regulated under
40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS. The North American Industry
Classification System codes for the refractory products industry are
327124 (clay) and 327125 (nonclay). We estimate that three major source
facilities engaged in refractory products manufacturing will be
affected by this final rule. To determine whether your facility is
affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the
appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the
appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/refractory-products-manufacturing-national-emissions-standards.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by January 18, 2022. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit,
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For
major sources, these standards are commonly referred

to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must
reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable
(after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality
health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA
section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of
measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but
not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP
emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or other
modifications; enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from a process, stack,
storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). 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.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 86 FR 3097 (January 14, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir.
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category and
how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP on
April 16, 2003 (68 FR 18730). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part
63, subpart SSSSS. The Refractory Products Manufacturing industry
consists of facilities that manufacture refractory products, such as
refractory bricks, refractory shapes, monolithics, kiln furniture,
crucibles, and other materials used for lining furnaces and other high
temperature process units. The source category covered by this NESHAP
includes three major source facilities.
    The NESHAP groups refractory product manufacturing processes into
four subcategories: Clay refractories, nonclay refractories, chromium
refractories (nonclay) and pitch-impregnated refractories (nonclay).
The three major source facilities manufacture clay and/or nonclay
refractory products and can be grouped into the clay and nonclay
refractories subcategories. Chromium refractory products and pitch-
impregnated refractory products are not manufactured by any of the
three major source facilities.
    The Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP specifies emission
limits, operating limits, and work practice standards for existing
affected thermal process units and for new and reconstructed affected
thermal process units that emit organic HAP according to refractory
product type. For existing clay refractory product kilns, the NESHAP
requires the use of natural gas or equivalent fuel at all times, except
during periods of natural gas supply interruption or curtailment, to
limit metal HAP, hydrogen fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl)
emissions. New clay refractory product kilns are required to meet
numeric limits for HF and HCl. For existing and new curing ovens, shape
dryers, and kilns that are used to process refractory products that use
organic HAP (i.e., nonclay refractory product sources), the NESHAP
provides the option of meeting a total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration
limit or reducing the THC mass emissions by at least 95 percent. The
NESHAP also establishes operating limits for thermal process sources
and control devices, which are based on operating parameters
established during performance testing. Additional detail on the
refractory product manufacturing source category and NESHAP
requirements are provided in the proposal preamble (86 FR 3083, January
14, 2021).

C. What changes did we propose for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category in our January 14, 2021 RTR proposal?

    On January 14, 2021, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, 40
CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS, that took into consideration the RTR
analyses (86 FR 3095). For this source category, we proposed that the
risks are acceptable, and that additional emission controls are not
necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. For the technology
review, we proposed improvements to the existing work practice standard
for affected continuous kilns using THC emission control devices. We
also proposed the following amendments: Standards for previously
unregulated HAP for affected sources in the clay and nonclay refractory
subcategories; the requirement that NOCS reports, performance test
results, and performance evaluation results be electronically
submitted; revisions to the SSM provisions of the rule; new test
methods and incorporation by reference (IBR) of alternative test
methods; and other minor technical and editorial revisions.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
source category and amends the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP
based on those determinations. This action also

finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including the proposed changes
described above, except we are finalizing a slightly modified version
of the proposed work practice standard for affected continuous kilns
using THC emission control devices, as explained in section IV.B.2 of
this preamble; and we are not finalizing the proposed allowance to use
alternative fuels during periods of natural gas supply curtailment or
interruption from the natural gas fuel requirement, as explained in
section IV.B.3 of this preamble. We are finalizing these requirements
as a result of the public comments we received on the proposed rule.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?

    This section describes the final amendments to the Refractory
Products Manufacturing NESHAP (subpart SSSSS) being promulgated
pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In this action, we are finalizing our
proposed determination that risks from the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category are acceptable, the standards provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health, and additional
standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect.
The EPA proposed no changes to the subpart based on the risk review
conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). The EPA received no new data
or other information during the comment period that would cause us to
change our proposed risk determination. Therefore, we are not requiring
additional controls or new requirements under CAA section 112(f)(2) for
subpart SSSSS in this action.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?

    We determined that there was a development in practice that
warranted revision of the MACT standards for this source category.
Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(6), we
proposed revisions to the MACT standards to improve the existing work
practice standard for affected continuous kilns using emission control
devices. The proposed revisions were based on the best practices of one
facility and included:
     Limitation of the work practice standard to THC emission
control devices only,
     an annual limit on the number of hours for bypass of the
control device,
     the requirement to process product containing lower
percentages of organic HAP content in the resins, binders and additives
(less than the average organic HAP mass fraction),
     an allowance for the processing of five kiln cars per year
with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction, and
     reporting of the mass of organic HAP emissions for bypass
periods in the semi-annual compliance report.
    The EPA received additional data during the comment period that
caused us to change these proposed work practice requirements.
Therefore, in this action, we are finalizing the following requirements
under CAA section 112(d)(6) for subpart SSSSS:
     The proposed limitation of the work practice standard to
THC emission control devices only,
     the proposed annual limit on the number of hours for
bypass of the control device,
     revised requirement to maintain the organic HAP processing
rate below whichever is lower, either (a) the average organic HAP
processing rate (i.e., the average organic HAP processing rate (pounds
per hour (lb/hr)) based on actual production on a 6-month rolling
basis, not to include periods of kiln shut down) or (b) the lowest
hourly organic HAP processing rate determined during the most recent
performance test,
     removal of the proposed allowance for processing of five
kiln cars per year with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction
during control device maintenance and bypass,
     revised reporting requirements for the semi-annual
compliance report, including:
    [cir] The average organic HAP processing rate based on actual
production on a 6-month rolling basis (not to include periods of kiln
shut down) or the lowest hourly organic HAP processing rate from the
most recent performance test (whichever is lower), for bypass periods,
    [cir] the actual organic HAP processing rate,
    [cir] the amount of product produced and the mass of organic HAP in
the product produced,
    [cir] the estimated THC emissions,
    [cir] the number of hours the control device was bypassed during
the compliance period, and
    [cir] the cumulative number of hours the control device was
bypassed over the last 12-month rolling period.
    We are not finalizing the proposed allowance for processing of five
kiln cars per year with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction
during control device maintenance and bypass. For more information
regarding the final improvements to the work practice standard that
applies for continuous kilns with THC emissions control devices, see
section IV.B of this preamble.
    In addition, the EPA received a comment during the comment period
that caused us to review the fuel combustion technology used by sources
in the source category and consequently revise the existing work
practice standard to require the use of natural gas (or equivalent
fuel) at all times. After consideration of the comment, under CAA
section 112(d)(6), we are removing the allowance to use alternative
fuels during periods of natural gas supply curtailment or interruption
from the natural gas fuel requirement as explained in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble. This finalized amendment applies to existing clay
refractory products kilns and new or existing chromium refractory
products kilns and reflects a development in our understanding of
refractory kiln fuel combustion technology since promulgation of the
original standard.
    Finally, as part of the technology review, we identified regulatory
gaps (previously unregulated processes or pollutants) and are
establishing new standards to fill those gaps as described in section
III.C of this preamble.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source
category?

    We determined that there are previously unregulated HAP for
existing sources in the clay and nonclay refractory subcategories that
warrant revisions to the MACT standards for this source category.
Therefore, pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) we proposed revisions to the MACT standards to include the
following:
     New emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as a
surrogate for non-mercury (non-Hg) metal HAP and mercury (Hg) for
existing clay refractory product kilns, and
     the requirement to use natural gas as fuel, or an
equivalent fuel, as the kiln fuel for new and existing curing ovens,
shape dryers, and kilns that are used to process refractory products
that use organic HAP (i.e., nonclay refractory product sources), except
during periods of natural gas supply interruption or curtailment.
    As noted in section III.B of this preamble, the EPA received a
comment during the comment period that caused us to review the fuel
combustion technology used for all refractory

products sources in the source category. Based on that review, we are
not finalizing the proposed allowance to use alternative fuels during
periods of natural gas supply interruption or curtailment from the
natural gas fuel requirement for new and existing nonclay sources.
Therefore, we are finalizing the new emission limits for PM (as a
surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) and Hg for existing clay refractory
product kilns, as proposed, and we are finalizing a revised requirement
to use natural gas, or an equivalent fuel, as the fuel for new and
existing nonclay sources, as a result of comments, under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) for subpart SSSSS in this action.

D. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

    We are finalizing the proposed amendments to the Refractory
Products Manufacturing NESHAP to eliminate the SSM exemption.
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
the EPA is establishing standards in these rules that apply at all
times. As detailed in section IV.E of the proposal preamble (86 FR
3099, January 14, 2021), Table 11 to subpart SSSSS of part 63 (General
Provisions applicability table) is being revised to change several
references related to the provisions that apply during periods of SSM.
We also eliminated or revised certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made
other harmonizing changes to remove or modify inappropriate,
unnecessary, or redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption.
We determined that facilities in this source category can meet the
applicable emission standards at all times, including periods of
startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA determined that no additional
standards are needed to address emissions during these periods. The
legal rationale and explanation of the changes for SSM periods are set
forth in the proposed rule. See 86 FR 3079, 3099-3102. Further, the EPA
did not propose and is not promulgating standards for malfunctions in
this final action. As discussed in section IV.E of the January 14,
2021, proposal preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards, although the
EPA has the discretion to set standards for malfunctions where
feasible. For the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category, it
is unlikely that a malfunction would result in a violation of the
standards, and no comments or information were submitted during the
comment period that support a contrary conclusion. Refer to section
IV.E of the January 14, 2021 proposal preamble for further discussion
of the EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for
malfunction events, as well as a discussion of the actions a source
could take in the unlikely event that a source fails to comply with the
applicable CAA section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction
event, given that administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply.

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    In addition to the changes described above we are finalizing other
proposed amendments for the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP
related to electronic reporting, test methods and minor technical and
editorial revisions, as described below.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data
accessibility, we are finalizing the proposed requirement that owners
and operators of facilities in the Refractory Products Manufacturing
source category submit electronic copies of required NOCS reports,
performance test results, and performance evaluation results through
the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) website using an electronic
performance test report tool called the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT). We also are finalizing, as proposed, provisions that allow
facility operators the ability to seek extensions for submitting
electronic reports for circumstances beyond the control of the
facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or Compliance and
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) or for a force majeure event
in the time just prior to a report's due date, as well as the process
to assert such a claim.
    We are also finalizing the proposed additional and updated test
methods and an EPA guidance document that are incorporated by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
incorporating by reference the following documents described in the
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
     ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' (Approved March
1, 2016), IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.9804(f)(1). This document provides
guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter bag leak
detectors.
    In addition, we are finalizing the following proposed technical and
editorial corrections:
     Revise 40 CFR 63.9824 and Table 4 to subpart SSSSS of part
63 to clarify the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test
methods; and
     Revise 40 CFR 63.9814 and 63.9816 to include the
requirements to record and report information on failures to meet the
applicable standard.
    Finally, although not addressed in the proposal, we are amending 40
CFR 63.9804(e)(1) to correct a spelling error.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category being promulgated in this action are
effective on November 19, 2021. New sources must comply with all of the
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, November
19, 2021, or upon startup, whichever is later.
    The compliance dates for existing affected sources are listed
below. Existing affected sources must continue to meet the current
requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS, until the applicable
compliance date.
    The compliance date for existing affected nonclay sources to comply
with the work practice to use natural gas as fuel, or an equivalent
fuel, as the kiln fuel at all times, including periods of natural gas
supply interruption or curtailment is November 19, 2021. The compliance
date for existing affected sources to comply with the electronic
reporting requirement for NOCS reports, performance test results, and
performance evaluation results is May 19, 2022. The compliance date for
existing affected sources with continuous kilns using THC emission
control devices to comply with the amended work practice standards
(i.e., limit the total number of hours for

bypass of the control device for during scheduled maintenance to 750
hours per year per kiln; maintain the organic HAP processing rate below
the average rate based on production or below the lowest hourly rate
during the most recent performance test, whichever is lower; update the
operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan; include the
required information in the semi-annual compliance report) is May 19,
2022. The compliance date for existing affected clay refractory product
kilns to comply with the new limits for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg
metal HAP) and Hg is November 20, 2022. The compliance date for
existing affected sources to comply with the SSM revisions, in
accordance with the SSM court decision, is May 19, 2022.
    We determined that an immediate compliance date is practicable for
the natural gas requirement and is based on current practices and other
information provided by the facilities. We are finalizing the 181-day
compliance date for electronic reporting and the scheduled maintenance
work practice to require facilities to implement these changes as
expeditiously as practicable. For electronic reporting, our experience
with similar industries that are required to convert reporting
mechanisms to install necessary hardware and software, become familiar
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission
capabilities, and reliably employ electronic reporting shows that a
time period of a minimum of 90 days, and, more typically, 180 days, is
generally necessary to successfully accomplish these revisions. For the
improved scheduled maintenance work practice, we expect facilities
would also need this time to seek approval from the Administrator
before taking the control device on the affected kiln out of service
for scheduled maintenance and update their operation, maintenance, and
monitoring plan to reflect the revised requirements. For the new PM (as
a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) and Hg requirements, we determined
the one-year compliance date would provide existing clay sources with
sufficient time to plan and schedule facility resources to meet the
notification and compliance demonstration testing requirements
associated with the new limits. For the SSM changes, excluding the
revised requirements for the SSM described above (40 CFR 63.6(f)(1)),
our experience with similar industries further shows that this sort of
regulated facility generally requires a time period of 181 days to read
and understand the amended rule requirements and make any necessary
operational adjustments, adjustments to recordkeeping and reporting
systems, and/or updates to OM&M plans to reflect the revised
requirements.
    During proposal we requested information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended requirements and the
time needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the
revised requirements. No comments or information were submitted during
the comment period that support a contrary conclusion; therefore, we
are finalizing these compliance dates as proposed.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document, Summary of Public Comments and Responses on
Proposed Rule: National Emission Standards for HAP for Refractory
Products Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS), Residual Risk
and Technology Review, Final Amendments, available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk
review and presented the results of this review, along with our
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of
safety, in section IV.B of the proposed rule preamble (86 FR 3095,
January 14, 2021). The results of this review are presented briefly
below in Table 1 of this preamble. Additional detail is provided in the
residual risk technical support document titled, Residual Risk
Assessment for the Refractory Products Manufacturing Source Category in
Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the Refractory Products Manufacturing docket (Docket Item
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0013).

                              Table 1--Refractory Products Manufacturing Source Category Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Maximum individual     Estimated population      Estimated annual         Maximum chronic        Maximum screening
                                     cancer risk (in 1     at increased risk of      cancer incidence     noncancer target organ  acute noncancer HQ \2\
                                         million)             cancer >=1-in-1        (cases per year)      specific hazard index -----------------------
                                 ------------------------         million        ------------------------       (TOSHI) \1\
         Risk assessment                                 ------------------------                        ------------------------
                                   Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on    Based on       Based on actual
                                    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable    actual     allowable         emissions
                                   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions   emissions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category.................         0.7         0.7           0           0      0.0003      0.0003        0.04        0.04  HQREL = 0.09
Whole Facility..................         0.7  ..........           0  ..........      0.0004  ..........        0.04  ..........  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The TOSHI is the sum of the chronic noncancer hazard quotients (HQ) for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system.
\2\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop HQ values.

    The results of the proposed inhalation risk modeling, as shown in
Table 1 of this preamble, indicate that the maximum individual cancer
risk based on actual and allowable emissions (lifetime) is 0.7-in-1
million (driven by trace amounts of chromium, arsenic, nickel and
cadmium emissions from tunnel kilns), the maximum chronic noncancer
TOSHI value based on actual and allowable emissions is 0.04 (driven by
HF from tunnel kilns), and the maximum screening acute noncancer HQ
value (off-facility site) is 0.09 (driven by HF). At proposal, the
total annual cancer incidence (national) from these facilities based on
actual and allowable emission levels was estimated

to be 0.0003 excess cancer cases per year or one case every 3,333
years. The maximum individual cancer risk (lifetime) for the whole
facility was determined to be 0.7-in-1 million at proposal, driven by
chromium, arsenic, nickel and cadmium emissions from tunnel kilns. The
total estimated cancer incidence from the whole facility was determined
to be 0.0004 excess cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every
2,500 years. No people were estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1
million from exposure to HAP emitted from both MACT and non-MACT
sources at the three facilities in this source category. The maximum
facility-wide TOSHI for the source category was estimated to be 0.04,
driven by HF emissions from tunnel kilns.
    We also evaluated multipathway human health risk from the five PB-
HAP that are emitted by sources within this source category (arsenic,
cadmium, POM, Hg (divalent Hg and methyl mercury), and lead). We
evaluated the cadmium emissions from these facilities and concluded
this HAP did not exceed the Tier 1 multipathway screening value of 1
for cancer or noncancer. We also evaluated the arsenic, methyl mercury,
and POM emissions and found these HAP caused an exceedance of the Tier
1 multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer. Therefore, we conducted
a Tier 2 screening assessment for these HAP and concluded that
emissions of arsenic, POM and methyl mercury from these facilities did
not exceed the Tier 2 multipathway screening value of 1 for cancer. A
Tier 2 noncancer screening assessment was also conducted for Hg
emissions and resulted in a screening value less than 1. Based upon the
results of the screening assessments no further screening or site-
specific assessments were conducted for this source category.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, modeled maximum annual-average lead concentrations were
compared to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead
(0.15 [micro]g/m\3\). Results of this analysis confirmed that the NAAQS
for lead would not be exceeded by any facility.
    To evaluate the potential for adverse environmental effects, the
EPA focuses on eight HAP, which are referred to as ``environmental
HAP,'' in its screening assessment: Six PB-HAP and two acid gases. The
PB-HAP emitted by sources in the category are arsenic compounds,
cadmium compounds, POM, mercury (both inorganic mercury and methyl
mercury), and lead compounds. The acid gases included in the screening
assessment and emitted from the category are HCl and HF. In the Tier 1
screening analysis for PB-HAP (other than lead, which was evaluated
differently), arsenic, cadmium, divalent mercury, and POM had no Tier 1
exceedances for any ecological benchmark. Methyl mercury emissions at
one facility had a Tier 1 exceedance for the surface soil no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (avian ground insectivores) by a maximum SV of 2.
A Tier 2 screening assessment was performed for methyl mercury. Methyl
mercury had no Tier 2 exceedances for any ecological benchmark. For
lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS.
    Two acid gases are emitted by sources within this source category:
HCl HF. We conducted a screening-level evaluation of the potential
adverse environmental effects associated with emissions of HCl and HF
and found that the average modeled concentration around each facility
(i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points in the
modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition,
each individual modeled concentration of HCl (i.e., each off-site data
point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for
all facilities. For HF, the maximum facility screening value (based on
the average concentration of all off-site data points over the modeling
domain) was well below 1 (0.007) and the maximum area that exceeded the
ecological benchmark was only 0.002-percent of the modeled area. Based
on the results of the environmental risk screening evaluation, we do
not expect an adverse environmental effect as a result of HAP emissions
from this source category.
    We weighed all health risk factors, including those shown in Table
1 of this preamble, in our risk acceptability determination and
proposed that the residual risks from the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category are acceptable (section IV.C of the
proposed rule preamble, 86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021). We then
considered whether 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS provides an ample
margin of safety to protect public health and prevents, taking into
consideration costs, energy, safety, and other relevant factors, an
adverse environmental effect. At proposal we determined there are no
individuals in the exposed population with lifetime cancer risks above
1-in-1 million as a result of actual or allowable emissions from this
category. In addition, in our risk analysis we did not identify a
potential for adverse chronic noncancer, acute noncancer, or
multipathway health effects. Therefore, we proposed the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health
(section IV.C of the proposed rule preamble, 86 FR 3095, January 14,
2021).
2. How did the risk review change for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category?
    We have not changed any aspect of the risk assessment for this
source category as a result of public comments received on the January
2021 proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    We received comments in support of and against the proposed
residual risk review. Having carefully considered these comments, it is
our determination that no revisions are warranted under CAA section
112(f)(2) for the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category.
Generally, the comments that were not supportive of the risk review
determination suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment
methodology. For example, one commenter stated that the EPA should
account for the increased risks due to exposure to multiple sources of
HAP, use more health-protective dose-response values, and consider
increased risks in childhood and from prenatal exposure. After review
of all the comments received, we determined that no changes to our
Science Advisory Board-approved review process were necessary. The
comments and our specific responses can be found in the document,
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rule: National
Emission Standards for HAP for Refractory Products Manufacturing (40
CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS), Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0148).
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    As noted in our proposal, the EPA sets standards under CAA section
112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting approach, with an
analytical first step to determine an `acceptable risk' that considers
all health information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and
includes a presumptive limit on the maximum individual risk (MIR) of
``approximately 1-in-10 thousand'' (see 54 FR 38045, September 14,
1989). We weigh all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, including the cancer MIR, cancer incidence, the maximum
cancer TOSHI, the maximum acute noncancer HQ, the extent of

noncancer risks, the distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the
exposed population, and the risk estimation uncertainties.
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed. For the reasons explained in the
proposed rule, we have determined that the risks from the Refractory
Products Manufacturing source category are acceptable, and that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Therefore, we are
not revising the subpart to require additional controls pursuant to CAA
section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk review, and we are
readopting the existing standards under CAA section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing Source
Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    Based on our technology review, we proposed improvements to the
existing underlying work practices as required by CAA section 112(d)(6)
during scheduled maintenance of THC control devices. These revisions
are necessary to reflect technical developments in pollution control
practices since the promulgation of the original standard for this
source category and reflect the best practices of one affected
facility. Specifically, for affected continuous kilns using THC
emission control devices, we proposed to limit the number of hours for
bypass of the control device to conduct scheduled maintenance, schedule
the manufacture of product with binder applicability of the standard to
THC emission control devices, limit the number of hours for percentages
at the lower end of the range produced during periods of control device
bypass. We also proposed to include the THC emissions for these periods
in the semi-annual compliance report. A brief summary of the EPA's
findings in conducting the technology review of refractory products
manufacturing operations was included in the preamble to the proposed
rule (86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021), and a detailed discussion of the
EPA's technology review and findings was included in the memorandum,
Technology Review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP,
available in the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0148-0008).
2. How did the technology review change for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category?
    For the final rule, we revised aspects of two work practice
standards from the proposal, based on public comments. First, we are
finalizing slightly different improvements than proposed for the work
practice standard that applies when a continuous kiln THC control
device is bypassed for scheduled maintenance. In particular, to
demonstrate compliance with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.9792(e)(2) to
minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and
the control device is out of service, the owner or operator will be
required to maintain the organic HAP processing rate (lb/hr) below
either the average organic HAP processing rate based on the actual
production on a 6-month rolling basis (not to include periods of kiln
shut down) or the HAP processing rate (lb/hr) that coincides with the
lowest hour of the most recent 3-hour performance test, whichever is
lower. This requirement replaces the proposed limitation of five kiln
cars with products for which the mass fraction of organic HAP in the
resins, binders, and additives is greater than the average for the
year. Second, we are revising the work practice standard to use natural
gas, or equivalent, as the kiln fuel by removing the exception for
periods of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    We received both supportive and adverse comments on various aspects
of our technology review for refractory products manufacturing. The key
comments and responses are provided in this section; summaries of
comments not discussed in this preamble and the EPA's responses can be
found in the comment summary and response document, available in the
docket.
    Comment: One commenter provided technical comments on the specific
provisions that the EPA proposed to limit production during periods
when the THC control device is being bypassed for maintenance. The
proposed provisions would have required manufacturing mostly product in
the tunnel kiln that contains a mass fraction of organic HAP in the
resins, binders, and additives that is less than the average organic
HAP mass fraction of these constituents for the year (on a 12-month
rolling basis), and manufacture of the product with an organic HAP mass
fraction greater than the average for the year would be limited to only
five kiln cars during such maintenance periods.
    The commenter explained that tunnel kilns comprise a preheating
zone, firing zone, and cooling zone in sequence with kiln cars passing
through the system containing pressed/formed refractory. Each kiln is
designed to hold a set number of kiln cars in the preheating zone
position and a separate set number of kiln cars in the firing zone
position. The type and amount of resins, binders, and additives in the
kiln are dictated by each product type's formulation. During drying in
the tunnel kilns, organic HAP in resins, binders, and additives is
volatilized and either destroyed in the tunnel kiln or exhausted to a
THC control device for destruction.
    The commenter noted that according to the memorandum Technology
Review for the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, available in
the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0008),
these proposed provisions are based on the facility's specific internal
operation procedures for the regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) unit
that state that tunnel kiln batches exceeding 90 binder counts can only
be pushed in a train of ``five cars or less.'' The commenter asserted
that the EPA has catered the five-kiln car provision too specifically
to the facility's one tunnel kiln due to extremely limited data, as the
facility is the only U.S. nonclay refractory producer using organic
binder and a THC control device. The commenter further stated that
these procedures only address one of the two continuous kilns at the
facility. The commenter also stated that since kiln cars can hold a
variety of refractory products of varying dimensions and formulation,
the mass of organic HAP emissions from the resins, binders, and
additives from car to car is variable. The commenter noted that a new
nonclay refractory tunnel kiln could potentially be constructed with
larger kiln cars, such that each kiln car could be designed to hold a
greater mass of nonclay refractory and emit much more organic HAP while
still satisfying the proposed provisions during periods of control
device maintenance.
    The commenter suggested that instead the proposed requirements that
apply during THC control device bypass for continuous kilns should be
amended to reflect a more universal operating parameter limit (OPL).
The OPL is established during performance testing in accordance with 40
CFR 63.9800 and Table 4 to subpart SSSSS. Each

continuous unit is required to establish a 3-hour block operating limit
for maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate, which is calculated
as the average organic HAP processing rate from performance testing
plus 10 percent in accordance with 40 CFR 63.9798(c) and EPA guidance.
The commenter suggested that the organic HAP processing rate during THC
control device bypass be limited to the average organic HAP processing
rate from the most recent performance test demonstration, as determined
on an hourly basis (i.e., 1-hour block average). The commenter also
provided suggested revisions to the regulatory language to implement
this suggestion.
    Response: The EPA proposed an improved work practice standard to
further minimize emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance and
bypass of the thermal oxidizer as a result of the CAA section 112(d)(6)
technology review process. In addition to the current work practice to
minimize emissions during these periods, we proposed other measures
based on the best practices of one facility. These included: (1)
Limiting the applicability to THC control devices; (2) an annual limit
on the number of hours for bypass of the control device; (3) the
requirement to process product containing lower percentages of organic
HAP content in the resins, binders and additives (less than the average
organic HAP mass fraction); (4) an allowance for the processing of five
kiln cars per year with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction;
and (5) reporting of the mass of organic HAP emissions for bypass
periods in the semi-annual compliance report.
    As a result of the comments regarding these proposed measures, we
learned we did not have full knowledge of the details of the facility's
internal operating procedures during scheduled maintenance and bypass
of the thermal oxidizer. As the commenter clarified, tunnel kiln
batches exceeding 90 binder counts (a measure of the volume of binder)
can only be pushed in a train of ``five cars or less'' during these
periods. The commenter also clarified this procedure applies to only
one of the two continuous tunnel kilns. We agree with the commenter
that using the ``kiln car'' limitation is an imprecise way of limiting
organic HAP emissions due to the potential variation in kiln car size.
However, the EPA found the facility's suggestion to set an operating
limit during bypass periods equal to the ``average organic HAP
processing rate from the most recent performance test, as determined on
an hourly basis (1-hour block average)'' and rule language edits to be
inconsistent with other rule requirements. Specifically, because
performance tests are required to be conducted while the source is
operating at the maximum organic HAP processing rate as defined in
Sec.  63.9824, we found this suggestion to be inconsistent with the
rule requirement to minimize emissions during control device bypass and
maintenance required by Sec.  63.9792(e)(2).
    We are therefore finalizing revisions to the proposed revised work
practice standard that reflect additional improvements as a result of
these comments and follow-up discussions with the facility to clarify
their best practices. Specifically, we are revising the proposed work
practice to limit the organic HAP processing rate rather than the
organic HAP content during control device bypass and maintenance as
proposed. The proposed rule language that required the facility to
minimize HAP emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and
the control device is out of service by ``scheduling of the manufacture
of product for which the mass fraction of organic HAP in the resins,
binders, and additives is at the lower end of the range produced (i.e.,
below the typical average mass fraction of organic HAP in the resins,
binders, and additives)'' is revised to ``maintaining the organic HAP
processing rate (lb/hr) below the average organic HAP processing rate
based on actual production on a 6-month rolling basis (not to include
periods of kiln shut down) or below the organic HAP processing rate
(lb/hr) that coincides with the lowest hour of the most recent 3-hour
performance test, whichever is lower.'' We are then requiring sources
to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to minimize emissions by
maintaining the organic HAP processing rate (lb/hr) during control
device maintenance and bypass below lower of the two organic HAP
processing rates described above. We are also revising the proposed
reporting requirements to reflect these changes. In addition, we are
removing the allowance for the processing of five kiln cars per year
with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction from the work
practice. Changing the work practice requirement from the mass fraction
of organic HAP in the product to the HAP processing rate while also
removing the reference to kiln cars provides a clearer and more
consistent metric for demonstrating that HAP emissions have been
minimized and provides the facility with options for minimizing
emissions during the period when the kiln is operating and the control
device is out of service (e.g., loading kiln cars with products with
lower HAP contents, reducing the number of kiln cars pushed through the
kiln per hour).
    In summary, the finalized work practice standard for periods of
control device maintenance and bypass includes: (1) The proposed limit
of the applicability to THC control devices; (2) the proposed annual
limit on the number of hours for bypass of the control device; (3) the
revised requirement to maintain the organic HAP processing rate below
the average organic HAP processing rate, determined as the lower of
either (a) the average organic HAP processing rate (lb/hr) based on
actual production on a 6-month rolling basis, not to include periods of
kiln shut down) or (b) the organic HAP processing rate determined
during the lowest hour of the most recent performance test; and (4)
semiannual compliance reporting of the following information: The
average organic HAP processing rate based on actual production on a 6-
month rolling basis (not to include periods of kiln shut down) or the
lowest hour from the most recent performance test (whichever is lower),
the actual organic HAP processing rate, the amount of product produced
and the mass of organic HAP in the product produced, the estimated THC
emissions, the number of hours the control device was bypassed during
the compliance period (as proposed), and the cumulative number of hours
the control device was bypassed over the last 12-month period (as
proposed). The final improvement of the work practice standard as a
result of the CAA section 112(d)(6) technology review process does not
include the proposed allowance for processing of five kiln cars per
year with greater than average organic HAP mass fraction during control
device maintenance and bypass.
    Meeting minutes from the discussion with the facility and follow-up
emails are included in the rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2020-0148).
    Comment: One commenter noted that the EPA proposed to limit the
number of hours during which a continuous kiln is operating and the THC
control device is bypassed for maintenance to 750 hours per year on a
12-month rolling basis. The commenter noted that the EPA identified
this provision as an improvement to the current standard since there is
no limit on the total amount of time the provision may be used other
than the requirement for the owner or operator to minimize the amount
of time for each bypass.
    The commenter also noted that per proposed requirements in 40 CFR

63.9792(e) and 63.9812(g), kiln operation during bypass of the THC
control device requires advanced approval from the Administrator (86 FR
3079, 3099, January 14, 2021). The commenter noted that the EPA also
proposed that affected sources must document the planned maintenance
procedures in the OM&M plan, and the proposed requirement in 40 CFR
63.9814(c)(7) would require reporting in the semi-annual compliance
report for these periods, including a statement of whether or not the
control device maintenance was included in the approved request to
bypass the control device while scheduled maintenance is performed. The
EPA has proposed to allow 181 days for compliance with the proposed
revisions, noting that this time would be used to update the OM&M plans
and seek approval from the Administrator before taking the control
device on the affected kiln out of service for scheduled maintenance.
    The commenter stated that the proposed requirement for
Administrator approval is based on its current state-issued title V
permit. The commenter noted that the state has delegated authority and
is the ``Administrator'' in regard to implementing and enforcing the
NESHAP requirements at 40 CFR part 63. The commenter clarified that the
current title V permit requires advance notification via email to the
state air quality inspector and to the Regional Air Quality staff that
the RTO will be out of service for scheduled maintenance, but the
permit does not include approval requirements. In addition, the
commenter stated that the EPA did not differentiate between THC control
device planned and unplanned maintenance and did not specify the scope
of maintenance (e.g., washdowns, bakeouts, media placement) to be
documented in the OM&M plan. Because the proposed provisions require
approval from the Administrator in advance, the commenter noted that it
appears kiln operation during unplanned maintenance events is not
addressed.
    The commenter requested that the EPA amend 40 CFR 63.9792(e),
63.9812(g), 63.9814(c)(7), Table 3, and Table 9 to specify that kiln
operation during periods of control device maintenance requires
``Administrator notification'' and not ``Administrator approval.'' The
commenter suggested that the notification could include a telephone
call or email to the Administrator within 24 hours of a bypass event.
The commenter asserted that this provision would allow for unplanned/
emergency maintenance, which is common for continuous process units,
particularly where facilities operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Additionally, requiring notification rather than approval for each
bypass allows facilities to avoid complete shutdown of a process unit
if the Administrator cannot be reached for approval (e.g., control
device requires unplanned maintenance at 3 a.m. on Saturday and
Administrator cannot be reached until 9 a.m. Monday). The commenter
noted that the EPA's proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements
related to the 750-hour (12-month rolling basis) limit on use of the
bypass provisions would still adequately qualify these bypasses with
Administrator notification versus approval. The commenter also asserted
that requiring notification instead of approval does not restore
``malfunction'' provisions, as the term is defined under 40 CFR 63.2,
as the bypass period is limited to 750 hours per year (12-month rolling
basis). Also, per U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610
(2016), the Administrator may determine whether the facility took good
faith efforts to minimize resulting emissions including preventative
and corrective actions and whether excess emissions were caused by poor
maintenance or careless operation.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's characterization
of the proposed requirements in 40 CFR 63.9792(e) and 63.9812(g),
regarding kiln operation during bypass of the THC control device and
advanced approval from the Administrator (86 FR 3099, January 14,
2021). The EPA agrees these citations pertain to kiln operation during
bypass of the THC control device and advanced approval from the
Administrator, but these provisions are original rule requirements that
were not proposed to be amended. The original general requirements for
complying with subpart SSSSS are contained in 40 CFR 63.9792, and 40
CFR 63.9792(e) specifically permits the continued operation of a
continuous kiln during bypass and scheduled maintenance of the control
device for that kiln, provided the owner or operator meets the
requirements of the work practice standard and requests and receives
approval by the Administrator per 40 CFR 63.9792(e)(1), which requires
a separate request each time the owner or operator plans to bypass the
control device for scheduled maintenance. Similarly, the original
requirements for notifications for subpart SSSSS are contained in 40
CFR 63.9812, and 40 CFR 63.9812(g) specifically states that owner and
operators must request approval from the Administrator before bypassing
the control device, as specified in 40 CFR 63.9792(e), and that a
separate request must be submitted for approval each time.
    We also disagree with the statement that the EPA proposed a new
requirement that affected sources must document the planned maintenance
procedures in the OM&M plan, as this requirement was also required in
the original rule at 40 CFR 63.9794(a)(6). The provisions in 40 CFR
63.9794(a)(6) pertain to any maintenance that requires use of the
bypass provisions. The provision includes ``procedures for the proper
operation and routine and long-term maintenance of each process unit
and [air pollution control device],'' which encompasses the more
specific types of maintenance described by the commenter (e.g.,
washdowns, bakeouts, media placement). Further, subpart SSSSS does not
include the terms ``planned maintenance'' or ``unplanned maintenance,''
nor does it define ``scheduled maintenance.'' However, as noted earlier
in this response, a request for Administrator approval must be
submitted each time the owner or operator plans to bypass the control
device for ``scheduled maintenance,'' and per Table 2 to subpart SSSSS,
the owner or operator must receive approval from the Administrator
before taking the control device on the affected kiln out of service
for scheduled maintenance.
    After review of the commenter's request, we are not amending the
requirements to request Administrator approval, and we also disagree
with the comment that there is a need to differentiate between THC
control device ``planned and unplanned maintenance'' within subpart
SSSSS. The EPA did not propose to amend the requirement to request
Administrator approval each time an owner or operator plans to bypass
the control device, and we conclude that allowing notification rather
than approval would not be an improvement to the standard. In
particular, if owners and operators were allowed to comply with the
work practice standard during periods of maintenance that are only
``scheduled'' a few hours in advance of the control device bypass,
those owners and operators would likely find it very challenging to
comply with all the specific requirements that must be met during
bypass to demonstrate compliance with the requirement in 40 CFR
63.9792(e)(2) to minimize HAP emissions during the bypass. Therefore,
the work practice standard we are finalizing for periods of control
device bypass and scheduled maintenance applies to all THC control
device bypasses for scheduled maintenance for

which the owner or operator receives approval from the Administrator.
Most of the maintenance activities described by the commenter are
likely to be considered ``scheduled maintenance'' for which the owner
or operator will be able to request advanced approval from the
Administrator before the control device is bypassed. These maintenance
activities are the activities that should be documented in the OM&M
plan. Bypass of the control device without Administrator approval would
be considered a deviation from the standard.
    Finally, the EPA agrees with the commenter that the state has
delegated authority and is the ``Administrator'' with regard to
implementing and enforcing the 40 CFR subpart SSSSS requirements.
However, the state does not have the authority to set standards less
stringent than those promulgated by the Administrator in accordance
with CAA section 112(l). Therefore, in order for the current title V
permit to satisfy the 40 CFR 63.9792(e) and 63.9812(g) requirements, it
must require advance approval by the Administrator and not the less
stringent notification requirements.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA must remove the
alternative fuel allowance provision. The commenter noted that the
existing standards contain a provision allowing for ``the use of
alternative fuels'' (such as fuel oil, propane, and pulverized coal)
during certain circumstances as an exception to the work practice
standard that requires use of natural gas as the core emission control
requirement. The commenter noted that the EPA has recognized this
provision allows for an exception from the standards in ``situations
analogous to malfunctions'' and explained in 2003 that its
justification for this provision was similar to the SSM exemption. At
the time, the EPA stated that, ``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'' (68 FR 18740, April 16, 2003).
    The commenter stated that to the extent that the EPA retains this
work practice standard as the sole or an additional control, it must
remove the illegal alternative fuel allowance provision. The commenter
further stated that including this provision means that the emission
standard (i.e., the fuel requirement) is not ``continuous'' and does
not apply at all times, which is a violation of CAA sections 302(k) and
112. The commenter asserted that the EPA should recognize this
allowance is as unlawful as the SSM exemption that it has recognized
the need to remove (Sierra Club, 551 F.3d at 1022), and therefore the
EPA should remove this specific malfunction exemption as well. Failing
to do so would violate CAA section 112(d)(6), by refusing to make a
``necessary'' revision to assure compliance with the CAA, and it would
be arbitrary because it would leave in place a harmful exemption that
allows the release of more pollution than CAA section 112 allows, based
on the illegal justification of a ``malfunction.'' In this instance,
the commenter noted, such a ``malfunction'' may simply be an increase
in natural gas prices, making this allowance particularly arbitrary
because it conflicts with the CAA's public health objective and the
floor requirement to assure emission standards based on the
``achieved'' emission reductions, without consideration of cost.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the existing
standards require the use of natural gas or equivalent fuel. It also
allows ``the use of alternative fuels'' during ``periods of natural gas
curtailment or supply interruption'' as defined in 40 CFR 63.9824.
Propane is considered to be a fuel that is equivalent to natural gas,
not an alternative fuel, as stated by the commenter.
    The current rule requirements related to alternative fuel usage
state that procedures for alternative fuel usage must be included in
the OM&M plan per 40 CFR 63.9794(a)(10)(i), require notification of
alternative fuel usage within 48 hours of the declaration of a period
of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption per 40 CFR
63.9812(f), and reporting of termination of alternative fuel usage
within 10 working days per 40 CFR 63.9814. The ``period of natural gas
curtailment or supply interruption'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.9824 as
``the period of time during which the supply of natural gas to an
affected facility is halted for reasons beyond the control of the
facility. An increase in the cost or unit price of natural gas does not
constitute a period of natural gas curtailment or supply
interruption.''
    The alternative fuel allowance was added to the rule as a result of
comments from the industry on the 2002 proposed rule, in which the EPA
proposed the use of natural gas or other such clean fuel to prohibit
the use of coal, fuel oil, waste oil, or equivalent fuels and the
resulting emissions of HF, HCl or HAP metals from existing clay
refractories (67 FR 42122, June 20, 2002). The EPA provided the
justification for the allowance referenced by the commenter in the memo
titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses on the Proposed NESHAP
for Refractory Products Manufacturing (Docket ID OAR-2002-0088, Item
No. V-C-01, page 12). Industry stakeholders opposed the 2002 proposed
work practice that required use of natural gas, stating that many kilns
were designed to use fuels other than natural gas and the need to use
these alternative fuels arises during natural gas shortages or price
increases. They also stated that during natural gas shortages,
residential users receive priority over industrial users of natural gas
and that prohibiting the use of alternative fuels could adversely
impact the viability of some refractory operations. After considering
those comments, the EPA finalized the alternative fuel allowance (73 FR
18736, April 16, 2003). The EPA did not consider a price increase to be
a justification for alternative fuel use at that time and omitted that
reason from the natural gas curtailment definition. Contrary to the
commenter's argument, this definition expressly states that an increase
in natural gas prices does not constitute a period of natural gas
curtailment or supply interruption, so the commenter's claim that such
a ``malfunction'' may simply be an increase in natural gas prices is
not valid.
    We acknowledge much has changed since the original NESHAP was
promulgated in 2003. For this final action, the facilities in the
source category confirmed they use natural gas and propane during
normal operations in accordance with the NESHAP and state requirements.
In the event of a natural gas curtailment or supply interruption, they
indicated they would not switch to another fuel due to the fuel-
specific burner technology in use. They stated they would either
continue to use equivalent fuel (propane backup) or shut down and
retool their process units to use equivalent fuel (propane) or an
alternative fuel (fuel oil) since they have no back-up supply of
propane and it would likely also be curtailed due to demand. The EPA
document titled AP-42, Section 1.5 Liquified Petroleum Gas Combustion,
updated July 2008, further supports that response, explaining that
burner design technology is specific to fuel type and that retooling
may even be required when changing the fuel type from natural gas to
propane. Retooling may include replacement of fuel injector

tips and/or vaporizers to provide burners with the proper fuel to air
ratio. In addition, as noted previously in this preamble, there are no
facilities currently subject to subpart SSSSS that manufacture chromium
refractory products. Based on the changes in in kiln and burner design
technologies since 2003, and on the determination that propane backup
is available (or if retooling is required, retooling can be done for
propane instead of other alternative fuels) for all existing sources
subject to this standard and can be part of the design of new sources,
we are removing the alternative fuel usage allowance. As a result, the
use of alternative fuels will not be permitted and will be a deviation
from the work practice standard, which will apply during normal
operation as well as during periods of natural gas curtailment/supply
interruption. The removal of the natural gas alternative fuel allowance
and the requirement to use natural gas or equivalent fuels reflects a
development in our understanding of refractory kiln fuel combustion
technology since promulgation of the original standard.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (86
FR 3095, January 14, 2021), we proposed amendments to improve the work
practice standard that applies when a continuous kiln THC control
device is bypassed for maintenance to reflect technical developments in
pollution control practices since the promulgation of the original
standard. We evaluated all of the comments received on these
improvements and the EPA's proposed amendments, and for the reasons
explained in the comment responses in section IV.B.3 of this preamble,
we are finalizing amendments to the proposed work practice standard to
further improve the work practices based on the best practices of one
affected source in the source category. We are also finalizing
amendments to the existing work practice standard that permits the use
of alternative fuels when natural gas or equivalent fuel is not
available, after review of the fuel combustion technology used by
sources in the source category in response to public comments. Further
explanation is included in the comment responses in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble. The removal of the natural gas alternative fuel
allowance and the requirement to use natural gas or equivalent fuels
reflects a development in our understanding of refractory kiln fuel
combustion technology since promulgation of the original standard.

C. CAA Sections 112(d)(2) and (3) Amendments for the Refractory
Products Manufacturing Source Category

1. What amendments did we propose pursuant to 112(d)(2) and (3) for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    In the January 14, 2021 action, we proposed amendments to the
Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP to address previously
unregulated HAP for affected sources in the clay and nonclay refractory
subcategories pursuant to 112(d)(2) and (3).
a. Clay Refractory Sources
    For new and existing clay refractory kilns, we proposed MACT floor
limits for Hg and for PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP), in
addition to the current NESHAP requirements for clay refractory
sources, based on emissions test data for existing clay refractory
kilns. The emissions test data for existing clay kilns reviewed for
this action confirmed trace (but measurable) amounts of non-Hg metal
HAP and Hg emissions. As a result, we proposed MACT floor limits of 3.1
lb/hr for PM and 6.1 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([micro]g/
dscm), corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for Hg for each new kiln used to
produce clay refractory products. We proposed MACT floor limits of 9.5
lb/hr for PM and 18 [micro]g/dscm, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for
Hg for each existing kiln used to produce clay refractory products.
Similar to other source categories, we proposed a limit for PM (as a
surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) because the metal HAP are contained in
the PM and the control techniques that would be used to control PM will
equally control non-Hg metal HAP. To demonstrate compliance with the
emission limits, we proposed initial and repeat 5-year performance
testing for the regulated pollutants, continuous parameter monitoring,
and daily visible emissions (VE) checks. Owners and operators whose
clay refractory products kilns are equipped with a fabric filter to
reduce PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP) have the option of
demonstrating compliance using a bag leak detection (BLD) system
instead of daily VE checks.
    We also evaluated the beyond-the-floor option of requiring all
existing sources to meet the proposed new source MACT standards for Hg
and PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg metal HAP). We concluded that
the costs of the necessary controls were not reasonable relative to the
level of emission reduction achieved for either the Hg or PM beyond-
the-floor options. In addition, these controls would create additional
solid waste, as there would be a need to dispose of the collected
metal-contaminated dust. Therefore, we did not propose beyond-the-floor
limits for Hg or PM. A brief discussion regarding the derivation of the
Hg and PM limits and the beyond-the-floor option was included in the
preamble to the proposed rule (86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021), and a
detailed discussion is included in the technical memorandum titled
Development of Proposed Standards and Impacts for the Refractory
Products Manufacturing NESHAP, located in the docket for this action
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0014).
b. Nonclay Refractory Sources
    For new and existing curing ovens, shape dryers, and kilns that are
used to process refractory products that use organic HAP (i.e., nonclay
refractory sources), we proposed a work practice standard to use
natural gas as fuel to limit metal HAP emissions (except during periods
of natural gas curtailment or supply interruption) as provided in CAA
section 112(h) in lieu of a numerical emissions standard, in addition
to the current NESHAP THC limits for new and existing nonclay
refractory sources. These sources currently employ the use of thermal
oxidizers, regenerative thermal oxidizers and catalytic oxidizers to
meet the THC limit, however, the NESHAP did not require sources to use
natural gas as fuel for sources in this subcategory because the metal
HAP emissions were determined to be below measurable quantities due to
the use of purified nonclay raw materials. Available HAP data for these
sources in the 2017 National Emission Inventory (NEI) were found to be
outdated and not reflective of current operating conditions. The 2017
NEI included measurable PM emissions for these existing nonclay
refractory sources, and the PM would be expected to have trace amounts
of metal HAP; however, we have no emission stack test data to indicate
measurable emissions of metal HAP for these existing nonclay refractory
sources.\2\ Therefore, as discussed in the preamble to the

proposed rule (86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021), we proposed a work
practice standard to use natural gas as fuel for new and existing
nonclay refractory sources to limit metal HAP emissions in lieu of a
numerical emissions standard in accordance with CAA section 112(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Thus, while we believe that there are metal HAP emissions,
the lack of data showing measurable emissions leads the EPA to
conclude that the application of measurement methodology to this
class of sources is not practicable due to technological and
economic limitations. See CAA 112(h)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. How did the 112(d)(2) and (3) amendments change for the Refractory
Products Manufacturing source category?
    We are making one change to the proposed CAA section 112(d)(2) and
(3) amendments. For each new kiln used to produce clay refractory
products, we are finalizing the proposed MACT floor limits of 3.1 lb/hr
for PM (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and 6.1 [micro]g/dscm, corrected
to 18 percent oxygen, for Hg. For each existing kiln used to produce
clay refractory products, we are finalizing the proposed MACT floor
limits of 9.5 lb/hr for PM (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and 18
[micro]g/dscm, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for Hg. We are also
finalizing the proposed requirements for initial and repeat 5-year
performance testing, continuous parameter monitoring, daily VE checks,
and the option of demonstrating compliance using a BLD system instead
of daily VE checks for clay refractory products kilns equipped with a
fabric filter to reduce PM (as a surrogate for metal HAP). For each new
and existing affected source used to produce nonclay refractory
products, we are finalizing the work practice standard to use natural
gas as fuel to limit metal HAP emissions as provided in CAA section
112(h) in lieu of a numerical emissions standard generally as proposed.
However, based on the review of combustion technologies prompted by
public comments on the existing work practice standard to use natural
gas as fuel (see section IV.B.3 of this preamble), the finalized work
practice for new and existing sources used to produce nonclay
refractory products requires the use natural gas or an equivalent fuel
at all times, without an exception during periods when natural gas is
not available.
3. What key comments did we receive on the 112(d)(2) and (3) amendments
and what are our responses?
    We received one general comment supporting the proposed CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) amendments for refractory products manufacturing. The
comment letter also included recommendations for more stringent
standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for this source category.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's proposed decision to set
numeric emission standards for Hg and for PM as a surrogate for non-Hg
metal HAP for existing clay refractory sources. The commenter noted
that setting limits for all unregulated sources of HAP emissions in
this category is required by CAA section 112(d)(6) (see LEAN v. EPA,
955 F.3d 1088). However, the commenter asserted that the proposed
limits are not strong enough to satisfy the CAA section 112(d)(2)-(3)
requirements and that the standards must reflect the maximum achievable
degree of emission limitation. First, the commenter stated that the
limits were set using insufficient data and that it is not clear why
the EPA did not use its authority under CAA section 114 to collect
additional emission data. Second, the commenter stated that the ``upper
prediction limit'' (UPL) methodology of setting standards is not
consistent with the statutory requirement of the floor as the ``average
emission limitation'' achieved by the best-performing sources, which
violates CAA section 112(d)(3) and is arbitrary. Therefore, the
commenter stated, the proposed standards do not come close to the
``maximum achievable'' degree of emission reduction.
    Response: As courts have regularly upheld, the EPA has wide
latitude in determining the extent of data gathering necessary to solve
a problem and courts generally defer to the Agency's decision to
proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific information, rather than
to ``invest the resources to conduct the perfect study.'' Sierra Club
v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)) (``If EPA were required to
gather exhaustive data about a problem for which gathering such data is
not yet feasible, the agency would be unable to act even if such
inaction had potentially significant consequences . . . [A]n agency
must make a judgment in the face of a known risk of unknown degree.''
Mexichem Specialty Resins, Inc., 787 F.3d. 561 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
    Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the EPA had sufficient data
available from the two clay refractory products kilns at Whitacre-Greer
to calculate MACT floors, so additional data collection was not
necessary. In the case of PM, multiple sets of emissions test data were
available for each of the two kilns, allowing for a data set for each
kiln that was robust enough that the EPA did not need to evaluate the
uncertainty associated with a limited dataset for either kiln. Further,
as noted in the memorandum Emissions Data Used to Develop the
Refractory Products Manufacturing Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk
Modeling Input Files (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0006), St.
Gobain has three batch tunnel kilns and two continuous tunnel kilns
capable of producing both clay and nonclay refractories, so they would
be subject to the proposed standards for PM and Hg when producing clay
refractories. However, 40 CFR 63.9824 defines a clay refractory product
as ``a refractory product that contains at least 10 percent uncalcined
clay by weight prior to firing in a kiln'' and includes six
classifications of clay (ball clay, bentonite, common clay and shale,
fire clay, fuller's earth, and kaolin). Based on the 2017 raw material
information provided by St. Gobain when the EPA was developing the
inputs file for the risk modeling, the quantities of clay fired do not
meet the 10 percent threshold for the manufacture of clay refractories
and are more consistent with the use of clay as a binder, so these
kilns are expected to be subject to the clay refractory kiln standards
infrequently. Therefore, it is not clear that using the authority under
CAA section 114 for these kilns would have yielded any additional PM or
Hg data for clay refractory kilns. In other words, if the EPA had
requested emissions testing under CAA section 114 for these five kilns
when they manufacture clay refractories, the EPA would have had to wait
for the facility to change their product on each kiln, which may not
have been feasible.
    Regarding the UPL approach, in August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued
its decision in National Association. of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
v. EPA, which addressed challenges to the EPA's 2011 Sewage Sludge
Incinerator (SSI) rule, issued under section 129 of the CAA. In NACWA
v. EPA, the court remanded the EPA's use of the UPL methodology to the
Agency for further explanation of how the methodology reflected the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent
of sources (for existing sources) and the average emissions limitation
achieved by the best-performing similar source (for new sources). NACWA
v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1151. Because the UPL methodology used in the
SSI rule was the same as that used in the major source Boiler MACT (40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD), the EPA requested a remand of the record
in U.S. Sugar v. EPA in order to address the court's decision in NACWA
v. EPA. The EPA prepared a memorandum explaining the methodology for
the UPL. This memorandum, the EPA's Response to Remand of the Record
for Major Source Boilers, provides a detailed rationale to use the UPL
as the basis of setting a

MACT floor for new and existing sources, and the methodology and the
explanation in the memorandum were upheld by the D.C. Circuit in U.S.
Sugar v. EPA, 830 F.3d at 639. Following the UPL memorandum, the EPA
issued a subsequent memorandum specifically addressing the application
of the UPL methodology when setting MACT emission limits with limited
datasets, Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited
Datasets. In that memorandum, the EPA concluded that there are
additional considerations when setting MACT floors for limited
datasets. The D.C. Circuit agreed that the EPA sufficiently explained
the general application of the UPL approach to small datasets in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 895 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The MACT floors were set
consistent with EPA guidance and with previous court decisions.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the 112(d)(2) and
(3) amendments?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (86
FR 3095, January 14, 2021), and in the comment responses in sections
IV.B.3 and IV.C.3 of this preamble and the comment summary and response
document (available in the docket for this rulemaking), we are
finalizing a work practice requirement to use natural gas at all times
for new and existing clay refractory product sources, and we are making
no changes and are finalizing the proposed 112(d)(2) and (3) amendments
for clay refractory kilns in the Refractory Products Manufacturing
source category.

D. SSM Amendments for the Refractory Products Manufacturing Source
Category

1. What SSM amendments did we propose for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category?
    We proposed amendments to the Refractory Products Manufacturing
NESHAP to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not
consistent with the 2008 court decision that the standards apply at all
times. More information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is
provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (86 FR 3095, January 14,
2021).
2. How did the SSM amendments change for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category?
    We are finalizing the SSM provisions as proposed with no changes
(86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021).
3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM amendments and what are
our responses?
    We received one general comment supporting the proposed amendments
to the SSM provisions for refractory products manufacturing and three
comments requesting that the rule requirements for this source category
apply at all times, not just during periods of SSM.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule and after evaluation
of the comments on the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions for
the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, we are finalizing the
proposed amendments related to SSM that are not consistent with the
requirement that the standards apply at all times. More information
concerning the proposed amendments to the SSM provisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (86 FR 3095, January 14, 2021).

E. Electronic Reporting Amendments for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing Source Category

1. What electronic reporting amendments did we propose for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    In the January 14, 2021, notice we proposed amendments to subpart
SSSSS to require owners and operators of refractory product
manufacturing facilities to submit electronic copies of NOCS reports,
performance test results, and performance evaluation results through
the EPA's CDX using CEDRI.
    The proposed amendments apply to the NOCS required by 40 CFR
63.7(b) and (c), 40 CFR 63.8(f)(4), 40 CFR 63.9(b) through (e) and (h)
and 40 CFR 63.9812, and performance test results and performance
evaluation results required by 40 CFR 63.9(h), 40 CFR 63.9800, and 40
CFR 63.9814. The proposal would require that all NOCS be submitted as
portable document format (PDF) files and uploaded to CEDRI. For
performance test and performance evaluation results, the proposal would
require test results that use test methods supported by the EPA's ERT
listed on the ERT website\1\ at the time of the test be submitted in
the format generated through the use of the ERT or an electronic file
consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema on the ERT
website. Performance test results using test methods that are not
supported by the ERT at the time of the test would be required to be
submitted as a PDF file using the attachment module of the ERT. In
addition, the proposal included two broad circumstances for electronic
reporting extensions. A description of the electronic data submission
process is provided in the memorandum Electronic Reporting Requirements
for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission
Standards for NESHAP Rules, available in the docket for this action
(Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0003). The proposed rule
requirements would replace the current rule requirements to submit the
NOCS reports, performance test results, and performance evaluation
results to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 40
CFR 63.13. The proposed rule requirement would not affect submittals
required by state air agencies. The proposed compliance date for
existing affected sources to comply with the electronic reporting
requirements for NOCS reports, performance test results, and
performance evaluation results is 181 days after the final rule is
published to begin electronic reporting. New affected sources are
required to comply with the electronic reporting requirements for NOCS
reports, performance test results, and performance evaluation results
on the effective date of the standard or upon startup, whichever is
later.
2. How did the electronic reporting provisions change for the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category?
    No changes were made to the proposed electronic reporting
provisions.
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting
provisions and what are our responses?
    We received one comment letter that addressed the proposed
electronic reporting provisions for refractory products manufacturing.
The commenter generally supported the proposed amendments except for
the proposed provisions of 40 CFR 63.9814(k) and (l) that would provide
instructions for affected sources unable to submit an electronic report
either due to a force majeure event or an outage of CEDRI.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the electronic
reporting requirements?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule (86
FR 3095, January 14, 2021) and the comment summary and response
document (available in the docket for this rulemaking), we are making
no

changes and are finalizing the electronic reporting provisions as
proposed.

F. Technical Amendments for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category

    In the final rule, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9824 and Table 4 to
subpart SSSSS of part 63, as proposed, to clarify the location in 40
CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods. We are also amending 40 CFR
63.9814 and 63.9816 to include the requirements to record and report
information on failures to meet the applicable standard.
    In the final rule, as proposed, we are adding and updating test
methods that are incorporated by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR part 51.5, the EPA is incorporating by reference
the following voluntary consensus standards (VCS) described in the
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, proposed
to be IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS. This document
specifies methods, apparatus and calculations which are used to
determine quantitatively, the gaseous constituents of the exhausts
including oxygen and carbon dioxide resulting from station combustions
sources.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, proposed to be
IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
     ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test Method for Elemental,
Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' (Approved March
1, 2016), proposed to be IBR approved for Table 4 to subpart SSSSS.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, proposed to be IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.9804(f). This document
provides guidance on the use of triboelectric monitors as fabric filter
bag leak detectors. The document includes fabric filter and monitoring
system descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation,
setup, adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Currently, three major sources subject to the Refractory Products
Manufacturing NESHAP are operating in the United States. The NESHAP
applies to each new, reconstructed, and existing affected source
located at a refractory products manufacturing facility that is a major
source of HAP emissions, is located at a major source of HAP emissions,
or is part of a major source of HAP emissions. A refractory products
manufacturing facility is a plant site that manufactures refractory
products, such as refractory bricks, refractory shapes, monolithics,
kiln furniture, crucibles, and other materials used for lining furnaces
and other high temperature process units. Refractory products
manufacturing facilities typically process raw material by crushing,
grinding, and screening; mixing the processed raw materials with
binders and other additives; forming the refractory mix into shapes;
and drying and firing the shapes. The NESHAP lists the affected sources
for four subcategories across the industry as the shape dryers, curing
ovens, and kilns that are used to manufacture refractory products that
use organic HAP; shape preheaters, pitch working tanks, defumers, and
coking ovens that are used to produce pitch-impregnated refractory
products; kilns that are used to manufacture chromium refractory
products; and kilns that are used to manufacture clay refractory
products. The three major sources currently operating in the U.S. can
be grouped into two of the subcategories and use curing ovens and kilns
that are used to manufacture nonclay refractory products that use
organic HAP and kilns that are used to manufacture clay refractory
products.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, the estimated emissions of HAP
from the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category are
approximately 40 tpy. The final amendments require that all three major
sources in the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category comply
with the relevant emission standards at all times, including periods of
SSM. The final amendments also limit the number of hours a continuous
kiln THC control device can be bypassed during scheduled maintenance
and require minimizing emissions of THC during bypass periods. We were
unable to quantify the emissions that occur during periods of SSM or
the specific emissions reductions that would occur as a result of this
action. However, eliminating the SSM exemption has the potential to
reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet the applicable
standard during SSM periods. Requiring the use of natural gas as kiln
fuel at all times also ensures that PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg metal
HAP) and Hg will not be emitted from combustion of coal, fuel oil, or
waste-derived fuels.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment. The final amendments would have no effect on the energy
needs of the affected facilities in this source category and would,
therefore, have no indirect or secondary air emissions impacts.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    We estimate that each facility in this source category will
experience costs as a result of these final amendments. Estimates for
reporting and recordkeeping costs for each facility are associated with
the electronic reporting requirements, elimination of the SSM
exemption, and revision of the requirements that apply during times of
scheduled maintenance of continuous kiln control devices. The costs
associated with the electronic reporting requirements are attributed to
submittal of NOCS reports, performance test results, and performance
evaluation results using CEDRI and include time for becoming familiar
with CEDRI. The costs associated with the revised SSM requirements were
estimated for re-evaluating previously developed SSM record systems.
The costs associated with recordkeeping to document the frequency and
duration of scheduled maintenance of control devices for continuous
kilns were also estimated. The recordkeeping and reporting costs are
presented in section VI.C of this preamble.
    We estimate the costs associated with this action are primarily due
to the new compliance testing requirements for the clay refractory
kilns in this action. Two of the major source refractory manufacturing
facilities manufacture clay refractory and are required to conduct
periodic compliance testing for PM as a surrogate for non-Hg metal HAP
and Hg once every 5 years. One clay refractory manufacturing facility
has two continuous kilns and the other has

two continuous kilns and three batch kilns. The costs associated with
conducting the combined PM and Hg test for each continuous kiln stack
are estimated to be about $23,600. The costs associated with conducting
the combined PM and Hg test for each batch kiln stack are estimated to
be about $31,800. We also assumed that tests for additional stacks at
the same facility would be conducted in the same trip, so the
additional cost is less due to reduced travel costs. The total costs
for the two facilities to test the seven kilns in a single year would
be $115,300. In addition to the testing costs, each facility performing
the testing will have an additional $6,900 in reporting costs per
facility in the year in which the test occurs.
    For kilns that meet the limits without any controls, owners or
operators are required to conduct VE monitoring to demonstrate
compliance. One of the continuous kilns is controlled with a wet
scrubber, but the other six kilns are expected to need to conduct VE
monitoring. We estimate that the monitoring will cost $3,740 per year
per stack, for a total of $22,400 per year.
    For further information on the potential testing and monitoring
costs, see the memorandum titled Development of Proposed Standards and
Impacts for the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, located in
the docket for this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0014).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of the compliance costs
outlined in section V.C of this preamble. To assess the maximum
potential impact, the largest cost expected to be experienced in any
one year is compared to the total sales for the ultimate owner of the
affected facilities to estimate the total burden for each owner. For
these final amendments, the total cost of testing, monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting is estimated to be $158,140. The total
annual costs associated with the requirements range from 0.00008 to
0.18 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. These costs
are not expected to result in a significant market impact, regardless
of whether they are passed on to customers or absorbed by the firms.
    The EPA also prepared a small business screening assessment to
determine whether any of the identified affected facilities are small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration. One of
the facilities affected by these amendments is a small entity. However,
the annual cost associated with the requirements is 0.18 percent of
annual sales revenue for the owner of that facility. Therefore, there
are no significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small
entities from these amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    As stated above in section V.B. of this preamble, we were unable to
quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with eliminating
the SSM exemption, although this change has the potential to reduce
emissions of volatile organic HAP.
    Because these final amendments are not considered economically
significant, as defined by Executive Order 12866, we did not monetize
the benefits of reducing these emissions. This does not mean that there
are no benefits associated with the potential reduction in volatile
organic HAP from this rule.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs the EPA to identify the populations
of concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms; specifically, minority populations, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Additionally, Executive Order 13985 was signed to advance racial equity
and support underserved communities through Federal government actions
(86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA defines environmental justice
(EJ) as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people
regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to
the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. The EPA further defines the term fair
treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies'' (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice). In recognizing
that minority and low-income populations often bear an unequal burden
of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues to consider ways of
protecting them from adverse public health and environmental effects of
air pollution.
    Based on an analysis of exposed populations, the EPA determined
that the Refractory Products Manufacturing source category does not
pose a disproportionately high adverse health impact on minority
populations and/or low-income populations, as specified in Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and referenced in Executive
Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 20, 2021). The EPA remains committed
to engaging with communities and stakeholders throughout the
development of air pollution regulations.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with this source category, we performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risks to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and within 50
km of the facilities. In the analysis, we also evaluated the
distribution of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks from the
Refractory Products Manufacturing source category across different
demographic groups within the populations living near facilities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Demographic groups included in the analysis are: White,
African American, Native American, other races and multiracial,
Hispanic or Latino, children 17 years of age and under, adults 18 to
64 years of age, adults 65 years of age and over, adults without a
high school diploma, people living below the poverty level, people
living two times the poverty level, and linguistically isolated
people.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the demographic analysis for the Refractory Products
Manufacturing source category indicates that no one is exposed to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million or to a chronic noncancer TOSHI
greater than 1. In addition, no percentages of the populations exposed
to emissions from the source category are higher than their respective
nationwide average percentages. Thus, the populations living near
refractory products manufacturing facilities are similar to the
national average in demographic characteristics, and we do not see a
disproportionately high exposure to the population groups indicated in
the Executive Orders. The methodology and the results of the
demographic analysis are presented in more detail in the technical
report titled Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Demographic
Factors for Populations Living Near Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category Operations, September 2020, available in the docket for
this action (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0007).

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not

economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the 2020 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, available in the Refractory Products Manufacturing
docket (Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148-0013).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was,
therefore, not submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this action have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2040.08. You can find a copy of the ICR in the Refractory
Products Manufacturing Docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0148), and
it is briefly summarized here.
    As part of the RTR for the Refractory Products Manufacturing
NESHAP, the EPA is not revising the existing emission limit
requirements but is adding new emission limit requirements for existing
clay refractory sources and is adding new work practices for existing
nonclay refractory sources. The EPA is also revising the SSM provisions
of the rule and is adding the use of electronic data reporting for
future performance test result and performance evaluation result
submittals, and NOCS reports. This information is being collected to
assure compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS.
    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities manufacturing refractory
products.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart SSSSS).
    Estimated number of respondents: In the 3 years after the
amendments are final, approximately three respondents per year will be
subject to the NESHAP and no additional respondents are expected to
become subject to the NESHAP during that period.
    Frequency of response: The total number of responses is 15 per
year.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to the three
refractory products manufacturing facilities over the 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be 230 hours (per year). The
average annual burden to the Agency over the 3 years after the
amendments are final is estimated to be 202 hours (per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The average annual cost to the refractory
products manufacturing facilities is $27,100 in labor costs in the
first 3 years after the amendments are final. The average annual
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) cost is $69,900. The total
average annual Agency cost over the first 3 years after the amendments
are final is estimated to be $9,990.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
annualized costs associated with the requirements in this action for
the affected small entities is described in section V.C. above.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector, the cost does not
exceed $100 million or more.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal facilities are known to be engaged in
any of the industries that would be affected by this action. In
addition, the EPA conducted a proximity analysis for this source
category and found that no refractory products manufacturing facilities
are located within 50 miles of tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
section IV.A of this preamble and are further documented in the
Refractory Products Manufacturing Docket.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA amended the
Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP in this action with two
methods that can be used as alternatives to the EPA methods in the
current NESHAP: ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses'' and ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy''.
The EPA also amended the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP in
this action with two new methods: EPA Method 29 (portion for Hg only)
and alternative method ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)''.
The EPA also added new guidance to the NESHAP: EPA-454/R-98-015, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak
Detection Guidance, September 1997. The methods and guidance will be
incorporated by reference as described below.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-
1981,

``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses.'' This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from
stationary combustion sources. The manual procedures (but not
instrumental procedures) of VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 may
be used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for measuring the oxygen or
carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. The gases covered in ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons, however the use in this
rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide and is an
acceptable alternative to the manual portion only and not the
instrumental portion.
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' as an acceptable alternative to
EPA Method 320. ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined to be equivalent to
EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of
ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results
from the direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but
lacks the caveats placed on the D6348-03(2010) version. The VCS ASTM
D6348-12e1 ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct
Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' is an extractive FTIR