I. How would I submit emissions test results to the EPA?

    The ERT provisions being proposed for clay ceramics manufacturing
are the same as those being proposed for BSCP manufacturing. The ERT
provisions for BSCP manufacturing are discussed in section III.I of
this preamble.

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

A. How did the EPA determine which sources would be regulated under the
proposed rule?

    Based on our review of the available information on the clay
ceramics manufacturing industry, we determined that there are three
distinct sectors within the industry: (1) Ceramic floor tile; (2)
ceramic wall tile; and (3) sanitaryware. Specifically, we found that
the ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware sectors of
the industry differ in terms of raw materials, processes and final
products.
    The primary raw materials used for manufacturing sanitaryware are
ball clay, other clays, feldspar and silica, whereas ceramic tile is
made primarily from ball clay, talc, nepheline syenite (an igneous rock
comprised of nepheline, microcline and albite), fire clay and shale.
However, while the raw materials are similar for ceramic floor and wall
tile, the mix for ceramic wall tile includes more talc and less ball
clay, resulting in a lighter-weight mix. Regarding processes, ceramic
floor tile facilities use spray dryers to process the ceramic mix into
a powder to allow tile pressing, followed by press dryers to press the
tiles. The tile is then glazed prior to firing in a roller kiln.
Ceramic wall tile facilities also use spray and press dryers, but they
are designed, managed and operated to handle the lighter weight raw
material mix. Ceramic wall tile is produced in a two-step firing
process using roller kilns and it is glazed in between firings. On the
other hand, sanitaryware facilities use tunnel kilns to fire the
ceramic ware and they glaze the ware before firing, predominantly using
glaze spraying.
    Ceramic floor tile, ceramic wall tile and sanitaryware also have
different characteristics as finished products and compete in different
markets. Ceramic floor tile is defined as a vitreous product with a low
water absorption rate. Floor tile is known for its multi-color,
variably-textured, and slip-resistant characteristics, which are not
acceptable in most wall tiles. Ceramic wall tile is defined as a non-
vitreous product required to meet a water absorption rate of 7 to 20
percent, much higher than that required for floor tile. Wall tile has
much more stringent appearance requirements compared to floor tile,
with the market demanding that most wall tile be mono-color, with a
high gloss or smooth matte finish (requiring a two-step firing
process). Sanitaryware is vitreous ceramic ware of zero or low
absorption after firing that is used for plumbing and bathroom fixtures
and accessories (such as toilets and ceramic sinks).
    In the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, the foremost sources
of HAP emissions are first-fire tunnel and periodic (shuttle) kilns at
sanitaryware facilities and roller kilns at ceramic tile facilities.
Based on emissions testing, the HAP emitted from first-fire tunnel
kilns and roller kilns include HF, HCl, Hg, other non-Hg HAP metals and
dioxins/furans. Shuttle kilns are also assumed to emit these pollutants
based on similarities in raw materials used in shuttle kilns and first-
fire tunnel kilns. Other sources of HAP emissions at clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities are glaze lines that employ glaze spraying at
ceramic tile facilities, glaze spray booths at sanitaryware facilities,
spray dryers at ceramic tile facilities and press dryers at floor tile
facilities. The HAP emitted from ceramic tile glaze lines include Hg
and non-Hg HAP metals, the HAP emitted from sanitaryware glazing
operations include non-Hg HAP metals and the HAP emitted from ceramic
tile spray dryers and press dryers are dioxins/furans. Other process
units at clay ceramics facilities (e.g., raw material processing and
handling, wall tile press dryers and sanitaryware ware dryers) have not
been found to emit measurable quantities of HAP.\54\ For this reason,
the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule covers those existing and
new first-fire kilns, glaze spray operations, spray dryers and press
dryers at major source clay ceramics manufacturing facilities that emit
HAP and meet the applicability criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ As part of the 2010 EPA survey, wall tile press dryers and
sanitaryware ware dryers were tested for dioxins/furans, but none of
the tests found detectable levels of dioxins/furans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional clay ceramics process units that do not meet the
applicability

criteria include (1) kilns that are used exclusively for refiring or
setting glazes on previously fired products; (2) glaze spray operations
that use wet glazes containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP
(dry basis); and (3) glazing operations using a flow (curtain) coating
or waterfall method.
    Re-fire kilns are used for firing products that have already been
fired but have minor defects, which are subsequently repaired. Nearly
all of the emissions from the firing of a clay body (i.e., fluorides,
chlorides) are released during the initial vitrification step conducted
in first-fire kilns, while re-fire ware has already been vitrified and
emits little to no fluorides or chlorides. Kilns that are used
exclusively for setting glazes on previously fired products also emit
little to no HF or HCl for similar reasons. Glaze spray operations
using glaze containing less than 0.1 (weight) percent metal HAP are
expected to be an insignificant source of HAP emissions. Glaze applied
using a flow (curtain) coating or waterfall method rather than using an
aerosol spraying method would have little to no air emissions of non-Hg
HAP metals.

B. How did the EPA select the format for the proposed rule?

    For Hg and PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) emissions from
ceramic tile roller kilns and first-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns,
this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes numerical
emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of product
produced. For non-Hg HAP metals emissions from ceramic tile glaze lines
and sanitaryware glaze spray booths, this proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule includes numerical emission rate limits for PM as a
mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze sprayed. For Hg emissions
from ceramic tile glaze lines, this proposed rule includes numerical
emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton of glaze
sprayed. For dioxin/furan emissions from ceramic tile roller kilns,
floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and first-fire
sanitaryware tunnel kilns, this proposed rule includes numerical
emission limits in units of concentration. The selection of numerical
emission rate limits and numerical emission limits as the format for
this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule provides flexibility for
the regulated community by allowing a regulated source to choose any
control technology or technique to meet the emission limits, rather
than requiring each unit to use a prescribed control method that may
not be appropriate in each case. In addition, the selection of
numerical emission rate limits as a mass of pollutant emitted per ton
of product produced ensures that differences in the size or process
rate of the affected source do not affect the level of emissions
control achieved.
    The PM limits are proposed as a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.
The same control techniques that would be used to control PM will
control non-Hg HAP metals. Particulate matter was also chosen instead
of requiring control of specific individual HAP metals because all
sources do not emit the same type and amount of non-Hg HAP metals due
to differences in raw materials and glaze formulations. However, most
sources generally emit PM that includes some amount and combination of
HAP metals. The use of PM as a surrogate will also eliminate the cost
of performance testing to comply with numerous standards for individual
non-Hg HAP metals.
    For acid gases (HF and HCl), this proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule includes a health-based emission limit as a mass of
HCl-equivalent emitted per hour. Further discussion about the
development of health-based standards for the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule is provided in section VI.J of this preamble.
    This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes work
practices for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. As described in more detail
in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, technological and economic
limitations make it impracticable to measure compliance with numerical
emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns.

C. How did the EPA consider different subcategories?

    Section 112(d)(1) of the CAA allows the EPA to promulgate emission
standards for either categories or subcategories of sources. Through
subcategorization, the EPA may distinguish among classes, types and
sizes of sources within a category.
1. Sanitaryware Kilns
    Upon initial consideration of the available information on the
sanitaryware sector of the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, we
determined that separate subcategories for sanitaryware periodic
(shuttle) kilns and sanitaryware continuous (tunnel) kilns were
warranted because shuttle kilns are smaller than tunnel kilns (with
lower production on an hourly basis and accounting for only a small
percentage of production) and are operated in batch cycles, whereas
tunnel kilns operate continuously.
    As noted in section VI.K.1 of this preamble, we have determined
that it is technologically and economically infeasible to test shuttle
kilns, thereby ruling out a quantitative analysis of how these
differences impact emissions. However, a qualitative comparison can be
made, in that smaller kilns operated periodically (i.e., shuttle kilns)
would be expected to have lower emissions over time compared to the
larger, continuously operated tunnel kilns.
2. Sanitaryware Glazing
    We also determined that separate subcategories for three different
glaze application methods for sanitaryware were warranted. Manual glaze
spraying is done by a human operator with one spray gun per station per
booth. The ware are moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to
one to two pieces at a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for
this type of glaze spraying are the highest of the application methods.
Spray machine, or chain-on-edge, glaze application is done by automatic
reciprocating spray guns from a fixed location with 10 to 20 spray guns
per booth. The ware are moved and set up on a ``chain-on-edge''
conveyor system and glaze is applied to six to seven pieces at a time.
The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze spraying
are the second highest of the application methods. Robot glaze spraying
is done by an automatic robot arm with one spray gun per booth. The
ware are moved and set up manually and glaze is applied to one piece at
a time. The emissions per ton of glaze sprayed for this type of glaze
spraying are the lowest of the application methods.
    We also examined subcategorization by manual spraying and non-
manual spraying (where ``non-manual spraying'' would include both spray
machine and robot glaze spraying), but we determined that the design
and emission differences between spray machine and robot glaze spraying
are significant enough to warrant separate subcategories.

D. What approaches did the EPA consider in developing the proposed
emission limitations for existing and new sources?

    As noted in section IV.D of this preamble, all standards for new
and existing sources established pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) must
reflect MACT. The remainder of this section describes the development
of the pool of data used to calculate the MACT floors for Hg, PM (as a
surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans. As noted in
section VI.J of this preamble,

health-based emissions standards are being proposed for the acid gases
HF and HCl under the provisions of CAA section 112(d)(4). Consequently,
the EPA has not prepared a MACT floor analysis for these pollutants.
    In our MACT floor analyses for Hg, PM (as a surrogate for non-Hg
HAP metals) and dioxins/furans, we separated the data by industry
sector, source type and subcategory as described in section VI.C of
this preamble (if applicable). Within each of those categories or
subcategories, we ranked the data in terms of lb/ton for PM and Hg and
in terms of nanograms per dry standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) at 7
percent O2 for dioxins/furans (as described in section VI.E
of this preamble). Because there are less than 30 sources in each
subcategory, we identified the top five (best performing) sources for
which we had data. For subcategories with less than five sources, we
considered all sources for which we had data as best performing
sources. Once we identified the best performing sources, we then
calculated the MACT floor in units of lb/ton or ng/dscm at 7 percent
O2 (as applicable) as described in section VI.E of this
preamble.

E. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for existing sources?

    The EPA must consider available emissions information to determine
the MACT floors. For Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP
metals) and dioxins/furans, we calculated the MACT floor for a
subcategory of sources by ranking all the available emissions data for
units within the subcategory with the best performing sources ranked at
the top, as described later in this section and then using the test
results from the best performing sources (up to five). Therefore, as
discussed in section VI.D of this preamble, the MACT floor limits for
Hg, PM (as a surrogate for total non-Hg HAP metals) and dioxins/furans
were calculated based on the performance of the best performing sources
in each of the subcategories.
    The best performing sources were determined by ranking each
source's average emission value from lowest to highest. We then
determined the data distribution of the dataset made up of the top five
best performers using kurtosis and skewness, as described in section
IV.E of this preamble. We assessed variability of the best performers
by calculating a UPL using the appropriate equation based on the data
distribution. The UPL takes into consideration the average performance
of the unit and the variability of the test runs during the testing
conditions. As described in section IV.E of this preamble, the UPL
represents the value which one can expect the mean of a specified
number of future observations (e.g., 3-run average) to fall below for
the specified level of confidence, based upon the results of an
independent sample from the same population. It is a standard
statistical methodology used to account for variability.
    A more detailed explanation of all the UPL equations used,
including the calculations of kurtosis, standard error of kurtosis,
skewness and standard error of skewness, can be found in the technical
memorandum ``Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor
Analysis for Clay Ceramics'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
    We also compared the appropriate 3xRDL value to the calculated UPL
value for each pollutant and subcategory. As described in section IV.E
of this preamble, we used the greater of the 3xRDL value and calculated
UPL value to ensure that measurement variability is adequately
addressed in the MACT floor emissions limit. This check was part of the
variability analysis for all existing MACT floors that had BDL or DLL
run data present in the best performing datasets (see the technical
memorandum ``Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor
Analysis for Clay Ceramics'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290).
    As previously discussed, we accounted for variability in setting
floors, not only because variability is an element of performance, but
because it is reasonable to assess best performance over time. We
believe this approach reasonably ensures that the emission limits
selected as the MACT floors adequately represent the level of emissions
actually achieved by the average of the best performing units,
considering operational variability of those units. Both the analysis
of the measured emissions from units representative of the best
performers and the variability analysis are reasonably designed to
provide a meaningful estimate of the average performance or central
tendency, of the best performing five units in a given subcategory. A
detailed discussion of the MACT floor methodology is presented in the
technical memorandum ``Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-
0290.
    Table 10 of this preamble presents the average emission level of
the best performing sources and the existing source MACT floor. Each
subcategory had less than 30 sources nationwide; thus, the top five
sources were used in the MACT floor. If we had data for less than five
sources, we used all the data available. The existing source MACT
floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

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

Sanitaryware manual glaze          Avg. of best performing   ...................              14  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................              33  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   Avg. of best performing   ...................             5.9  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................              12  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze           Avg. of best performing   ...................             4.4  ..............
 application.                       sources.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             8.8  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The existing source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.
\b\ Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed.
\c\ PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.
\d\ The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

F. How did the EPA determine the MACT floors for new sources?

    The approach that we used to calculate the MACT floors for new
sources is described in section IV.F of this preamble. This approach
reasonably ensures that the emission limit selected as the MACT floor
adequately represents the average level of control actually achieved in
practice by the best controlled similar source, considering ordinary
operational variability. A detailed discussion of the MACT floor
methodology is presented in the technical memorandum ``Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for Clay Ceramics''
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
    Table 11 of this preamble presents, for each subcategory and
pollutant, the average emission level of the best performing similar
source and the new source MACT floor. The new source MACT floors are
based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.

                    Table 11--Summary of MACT Floor Results for Clay Ceramics New Sources \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Dioxins/furans
           Subcategory                     Parameter           Hg \b\ (lb/ton)      PM b c (lb/    (ng/dscm at 7
                                                                                ton)         percent O2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns..........  Avg. of top performer...  3.5 E-05...........           0.020             1.1
                                   MACT floor..............  3.9 E-05...........           0.027             1.5
Floor tile press dryers..........  Avg. of top performer...  ...................  ..............           0.070
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.19
Floor tile spray dryers..........  Avg. of top performer...  ...................  ..............           0.010
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.17
Wall tile roller kilns...........  Avg. of top performer...  5.0 E-05...........           0.071           0.065
                                   MACT floor..............  2.0 E-04...........            0.20            0.17
Wall tile spray dryers...........  Avg. of top performer...  ...................  ..............           0.053
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................  ..............        \d\ 0.12
Tile glaze lines.................  Avg. of top performer...  7.4 E-06...........            0.15  ..............
                                   MACT floor..............  1.6 E-04 \d\.......            0.61  ..............
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel     Avg. of top performer...  6.4 E-05...........           0.092            0.23
 kilns.
                                   MACT floor..............  1.2 E-04...........           0.095            0.37
Sanitaryware manual glaze          Avg. of top performer...  ...................             3.3  ..............
 application.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             3.8  ..............
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze   Avg. of top performer...  ...................             2.0  ..............
 application.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             3.2  ..............
Sanitaryware robot glaze           Avg. of top performer...  ...................             1.3  ..............
 application.
                                   MACT floor..............  ...................             2.2  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The new source MACT floors are based on the UPL unless otherwise noted.
\b\ Units of measure for kilns are lb/ton ware produced; for glazing are lb/ton glaze sprayed.
\c\ PM is a surrogate for non-Hg HAP metals.
\d\ The MACT floor is based on 3xRDL value.

G. What is our approach for applying the upper prediction limit to
limited datasets?

    As discussed in section IV.G of this preamble, there are specific
considerations when dealing with limited datasets. For the clay
ceramics source category, we have limited datasets for the following
pollutants and subcategories:

     Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new floor tile roller
kilns;
     dioxins/furans for new floor tile press dryers;
     dioxins/furans for new floor tile spray dryers;
     Hg and dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile
roller kilns;

     dioxins/furans for existing and new wall tile spray
dryers;
     Hg and PM for new tile glaze lines;
     Hg, PM, and dioxins/furans for new sanitaryware tunnel
kilns; and
     PM for new sanitaryware manual, spray machine, and
robot glaze spray booths.

    For each dataset, we performed the steps outlined in the memorandum
titled ``Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited
Datasets,'' which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291;
see that memorandum for more information on the analysis and the
results.

H. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for existing sources?

    As discussed in sections II.A and VI.D of this preamble, the EPA
must consider emissions limitations and requirements that are more
stringent than the MACT floor (i.e., beyond-the-floor control options).
When considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not
only the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take
into account costs, energy and non-air quality health and environmental
impacts when doing so. Once the MACT floor determinations were complete
for each subcategory, we considered various regulatory options more
stringent than the MACT floor level of control (e.g., the performance
of technologies that could result in lower emissions) for the different
subcategories.
    We considered requiring each subcategory of existing sources to
meet the new source MACT floors developed as described in section VI.F
of this preamble. We analyzed the beyond-the-floor options for each
pollutant separately for each subcategory of existing sources. Our
analyses are documented in the technical memorandum ``Development of
Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP'' in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and summarized in the following
paragraphs.
    For Hg from existing sanitaryware tunnel kilns, based on the data
available, we estimate that all existing tunnel kilns could meet the
new source MACT floor emission limits described in section VI.F of this
preamble without incurring additional emission control costs.
Therefore, we are proposing a beyond-the-floor Hg limit for existing
sanitaryware tunnel kilns equivalent to the new source MACT floor.
    For several sources and pollutants, the existing source MACT floor
and the new source MACT floor are the same value, usually because there
is only one source with data in the subcategory or because both floors
are based on the 3xRDL value. These sources/pollutants include dioxins/
furans from floor tile press dryers, PM (as a surrogate for total non-
Hg HAP metals), Hg and dioxins/furans from wall tile roller kilns,
dioxins/furans from wall tile spray dryers and Hg from ceramic tile
glaze lines. Therefore, we are not proposing beyond-the-floor limits
for these sources and pollutants.
    The incremental costs, emission reductions and cost effectiveness
for all other beyond-the-floor options are summarized by subcategory
and by pollutant in Table 12 of this preamble. In all these cases, we
have concluded that the incremental costs of additional control above
the MACT floor emission limits are not reasonable relative to the level
of emission reduction achieved. Therefore, we are not proposing to go
beyond-the-floor for any of the subcategory/pollutant concentrations
included in Table 12 of this preamble.

       Table 12--Summary of Costs, Emissions Reductions and Cost Effectiveness for Selected Clay Ceramics Beyond-the-Floor Options (2011 dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost (million)            Incremental
                                                                           -------------------------------- HAP  Emissions   Cost Effectiveness  ($/ton
               Subcategory                            Pollutant                                                Reductions            total HAP)
                                                                                Capital         Annual           (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Floor tile roller kilns.................  Hg..............................           $4.14           $3.16           0.044                   $71,800,000
                                          Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            10.8            4.28            0.73                     5,830,000
                                          Dioxins/furans..................            2.32            1.77        8.5 E-07             2,080,000,000,000
Floor tile spray dryers.................  Dioxins/furans..................           0.335           0.278        4.6 E-08             5,990,000,000,000
Tile glaze lines........................  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            7.67            2.70           0.038                    70,600,000
First-fire sanitaryware tunnel kilns....  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            3.91            2.01           0.020                   102,000,000
                                          Dioxins/furans..................            2.98            1.78        3.4 E-08            51,700,000,000,000
Sanitaryware manual glaze application...  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            6.78            2.19            0.24                     9,090,000
Sanitaryware spray machine glaze          Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            1.89           0.900            0.14                     6,420,000
 application.
Sanitaryware robot glaze application....  Total non-Hg HAP metals.........            4.97            2.22           0.097                    23,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. How did the EPA consider beyond-the-floor for new sources?

    The MACT floor level of control for each subcategory of new sources
for each pollutant was based on the emission control that is achieved
in practice by the best controlled similar source within each of the
subcategories. When we establish a beyond-the-floor standard, we
typically identify control techniques that have the ability to achieve
an emissions limit more stringent than the MACT floor. No techniques
were identified that would achieve HAP reductions greater than the new
source floors for any of the subcategories for each pollutant.
Therefore, the EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor limit for any of
the new sources in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

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

    In developing the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, we

considered whether it was appropriate to establish health-based
emission standards under CAA section 112(d)(4) for the acid gases HF
and HCl. The rationale for the development of health-based standards
for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is the same as that
presented for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, with a few
exceptions, which are discussed in the sections below. The rationale
for the development of health-based standards for the proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule is discussed in section IV.J of this preamble.
1. What factors does the EPA consider in exercising its discretion
whether to set a CAA section 112(d)(4) standard?
    Section IV.J of this preamble discusses the following factors that
the EPA considers in making a judgment whether to set a standard based
on the health threshold or the traditional MACT process:

     The availability of data to set the health-based
standard;
     Co-benefits that would be achieved via the MACT
standard, such as reductions in emissions of other HAP and/or
criteria pollutants;
     The potential impacts on ecosystems of releases of the
pollutant; and
     The potential for cumulative adverse health effects due
to concurrent exposure to the same HAP or other HAP with similar
biological endpoints, from either the same or other source
categories, where the concentration of the threshold pollutant
emitted from the given source category is below the threshold.

    The evaluation of the first three factors (availability of data,
co-benefits and potential ecosystem impacts) are nearly identical for
both the BSCP and clay ceramics industries. However, further analysis
was required concerning the last factor (potential for cumulative
adverse health effects). The evaluation of all four factors for the
clay ceramics industry is provided below.
a. Availability of Data To Determine Standard
    Like the BSCP manufacturing rule, because of the relatively small
number of facilities compared to other rules such as the Boiler MACT
proposal, the EPA was able to determine facility-specific information
for the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, including tunnel and roller
kiln locations and operating characteristics and stack parameters,
available for all clay ceramics facilities to assess the feasibility of
health-based standards in this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing
rule. Such information enabled us to conduct the dispersion modeling
necessary to establish a health-based emission limit for acid
gases.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For more information, see the technical memorandum ``Risk
Assessment to Determine a Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid
Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Source Category'' in
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consequently, we have concluded that we have enough information to
determine the health-based emission standards for the acid gases HF and
HCl for the clay ceramics industry. As discussed in further detail
below, these limits have been developed to ensure that exposure is
below the health threshold for each facility and also ensure that acute
exposures will not pose any health concerns.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970, 54986/1
(September 9, 2010) (``[W]e currently lack information on the peak
short-term emissions of HCl from cement kilns which might allow us
to determine whether a chronic health-based emission standard for
HCl would ensure that acute exposures will not pose health
concerns.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Co-Benefits
    The additional nationwide SO2 reductions that would be
attributable to Clay Ceramics MACT standards for acid gases are
estimated to be 31 tpy in the third year following promulgation of the
proposed standards. Similar to BSCP, this reduction is substantially
lower than the co-benefits from MACT standards for other industries for
which the EPA has decided not to set a health-based limit,\57\ and it
would not be expected to provide a significant public health benefit in
the circumstances here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule, 75 FR 54970
(September 9, 2010)--Co-benefits was identified as the ``decisive
factor'' in the Portland Cement NESHAP Final Rule. 75 FR 54970,
54985/3. There, EPA declined to set a health-based standard for HCl
where setting a MACT standard also controlled other HAP and criteria
pollutants. Specifically discussed were SO2 and other HAP
gases. See 75 FR at 54984/3 (``The additional reductions of
SO2 alone attributable to the MACT standards for HCl are
estimated to be 124,000 tons per year'' and discussing both direct
SO2 effects and effects of SO2 as a precursor
to PM2.5) and 75 FR at 54986/1 (``[Other HAP gases
(chlorine (Cl2), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and hydrogen
fluoride (HF))] are also controlled during the process of
controlling HCl emissions from cement kilns using a wet scrubber. As
such, their health impacts must be taken into account when
considering a health-based emission limit for HCl.'' See also Boiler
MACT Final Rule, 76 FR at 15644/1 (``EPA considered the comments
received on this issue and continues to believe that the co-benefits
are significant and provide an additional basis for the
Administrator to conclude that it is not appropriate to exercise her
discretion under section 112(d)(4).'') and Boiler MACT Proposed
Rule, 75 FR 32006, 32032 (June 4, 2010)--Co-benefits from MACT
standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP metals included the
reduction of 340,000 tons per year of SO2 and unspecified
reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid gases (hydrogen bromide) and
mercury. See also MATS Proposed Rule, 76 FR 24976, 25051/1--Co-
benefits from MACT standard for HCl and PM as surrogate for HAP
metals included the reduction of 2.1 million tons per year of
SO2 and unspecified reductions of PM, other non-HAP acid
gases (hydrogen bromide) and mercury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Ecosystem Impacts
    For the section 112(d)(4) evaluation, the EPA assessed the acid
gases HCl and HF around each clay ceramics facility. For HCl, the
environmental risk screen indicated that the area-weighted average
modeled concentrations of HCl around each facility (i.e., the area-
weighted average concentration of all offsite data points in the
modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological benchmark. In addition,
the ecological benchmark was not exceeded at any offsite receptor
location for any facility.
    For HF, the environmental risk screen indicated that the area-
weighted average modeled concentrations of HF around each facility
(i.e., the area-weighted average concentration of all offsite data
points in the modeling domain) did not exceed the ecological
benchmarks. There were multiple facilities with modeled concentrations
of HF at offsite receptor locations that exceeded the ecological
benchmark, but the area over which the value was exceeded was no
greater than one percent of the offsite modeling domain for each
facility, indicating that there would not be any significant or
widespread environmental effects.
d. Cumulative Effects
    As noted previously, the EPA may consider the availability of
information on emissions from co-located and nearby sources and
consider if it is feasible to determine the potential cumulative health
effects from emissions from the sources in the category when combined
with other emissions from other sources that are co-located or located
nearby. Relevant emissions may include both emissions of the same
pollutant and emissions of other pollutants that may cause cumulative
effects.
    Through industry responses to the clay ceramics 2008 EPA survey and
the 2010 EPA survey, we have substantial information on the locations
of clay ceramics plants and the levels of HF and HCl emitted from those
plants. While the major source ceramic tile plants are not co-located
with any other type of operation, the three major source sanitaryware
plants are. However, the sources co-located with the sanitaryware
plants do not emit acid gases. The metal foundry plant co-located with
the sanitaryware plant in Kohler, Wisconsin emits chiefly particulates
and metals, while the fiberglass plants co-located with the
sanitaryware plants in Spartanburg, South Carolina and Brownwood, Texas

emit chiefly organic HAP (styrene). Consequently, any acid gas
emissions from co-located sources are not expected to impact the total
facility acid gas emissions significantly.
    Like BSCP facilities, clay ceramics facilities are typically
located on large tracts of land needed for all of the processes
involved in clay ceramics manufacturing, including raw material
receiving, storage and processing; glaze preparation; forming; drying;
glazing; firing; product inspection; and packaging. This provides an
additional buffer between the clay ceramics plants and the surrounding
area. Because of the relatively low plume heights, maximum risks from
the clay ceramics plants are located close to the facility property
line. In trying to define cumulative risks from nearby non-clay
ceramics emissions, the location and emissions associated with other
sources not in the clay ceramics source category are far less certain.
While the 2008 EPA survey and the 2010 EPA survey data for clay
ceramics facilities have been reviewed by EPA engineers and scientists,
the emissions levels and locations of nearby other facilities such as
those in the NEI have not undergone the same level of detailed review.
Thus, a quantitative analysis of nearby emissions may contain
significant of uncertainty. However, as discussed above, because of the
large footprint of clay ceramic facilities and the clay ceramics risks
being confined to the near plant locations, we do not expect that the
combined emissions of HF or HCl from clay ceramics facilities and
nearby other sources would result in substantial cumulative health and
environmental effects.
2. How did the EPA set the level of the standard?
    As with BSCP, the EPA is proposing to exercise its discretion to
use CAA section 112(d)(4). This conclusion is consistent with the EPA's
prior decisions where we found it appropriate not to exercise the
discretion to invoke the authority in CAA section 112(d)(4) for acid
gases, because the circumstances in this case differ from those
previous considerations. We request comment on the analysis and
conclusions regarding setting health-based standards.
    Following from the EPA's determination that a health-based standard
is appropriate, the standard must be set as follows:

     There must be an ample margin of safety to avoid the
health effects on which the threshold is based.
     There must be no observable adverse effect.
     The standard must not allow greater adverse
environmental effects as the MACT standard that would otherwise be
established.
     A standard must be set; there can be no exclusions from
compliance based on a showing that the source's emissions do not
pose a health risk.

    As part of the development of the proposed standards, we have
maintained an inventory of major source facilities, including the size
and operating hours of each tunnel and roller kiln and the geographic
location and physical attributes (e.g., stack height, diameter, exit
gas flow rate) of each kiln stack. To develop a health-based emission
limit, both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations
and health risks from the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category
were estimated using the HEM-3 model as described in section IV.J.3 of
this preamble. Further information on the overall modeling approach is
presented in the technical memorandum, ``Risk Assessment to Determine a
Health-Based Emission Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics
Manufacturing Source Category'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each acid
gas emitted by each source in the source category. The air
concentrations at each nearby census block centroid were used as a
surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure concentration for all the
people who reside in that census block. Chronic noncancer health
hazards are expressed by comparing a chronic exposure to a reference
level as a ratio. Because we performed HEM-3 model runs for each acid
gas individually, we did not aggregate HQ values of different acid
gases. Of course, multiple acid gas pollutants are emitted at clay
ceramics facilities, but a 600 tpy level of HCl-equivalent emissions
(based on the HEM risks modeling) ensures that a TOSHI of 1 is not
exceeded, as long as the HCl-equivalent emissions do not exceed 600
tpy. It is important to note that this emission limit is only
applicable to the sources in this source category and should not be
considered for sources other than those included in this analysis.
Equivalent emissions for HF are determined by the ratio of the chronic
RfC to that for HCl, such that the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF are
420 tpy.
    Because the emissions equivalency was based on chronic dose-
response values, the 600 tpy level does not necessarily ensure that
acute reference levels will not be exceeded. For the HCl model runs,
there were no facilities with acute screening HQ values exceeding 1.
For HF, we estimate that two of the eight facilities examined had an
acute value exceed the REL with the highest being two. However, no
facility exceeded an HQ (AEGL-1) value for HF. To assure that no source
emits more than the 600 tpy HCl-equivalent limit in a single hour, we
propose setting the emissions limit at the hourly equivalent of 600 tpy
(140 lb/hr of HCl-equivalent emissions).
    It is important to note that the above emissions thresholds are
developed from back-calculating the emissions that would result in an
HQ of 1 at the worst-case facility. Potential risks at other facilities
(not the worst-case facility) are predicted to be well below 1.
    Because we had site-specific data on the operation of each tunnel
and roller kiln, we were able to use dispersion modeling to ensure
that: (1) The health-based emission limit cited above for clay ceramics
facilities provides an ample margin of safety and (2) persons exposed
to emissions of the pollutant would not experience the adverse health
effects on which the threshold is based. In addition, as stated
previously, the levels of acid gas emissions associated with clay
ceramics kilns, based on results from the EPA's environmental risk
screen methodology outlined above, are not expected to have an adverse
environmental impact.
    Facilities would demonstrate compliance with the health-based
emission limit by determining their facility-wide HCl and HF emissions,
calculating the HCl-equivalent emissions for HF using RfC values and
adding the HCl emissions to the HCl-equivalent value to calculate the
total HCl-equivalent emissions. An equation to perform this calculation
is provided in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. For more
information on the development of the health-based standard, see the
technical memorandum ``Risk Assessment to Determine a Health-Based
Emissions Limitation for Acid Gases for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing
Source Category'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. For more
information on the calculation of an HCl-equivalent value, see the
technical memorandum ``Development of Cost and Emission Reduction
Impacts for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0290.

K. How did the EPA determine whether to set work practice standards for
existing and new sources?

    Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may set work practice standards
in place of an emissions standard where it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard. The EPA is proposing to conclude that
an emissions standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns is not feasible
because the application of measurement methodology to these sources is
not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
Therefore, the EPA is proposing a work practice standard for
sanitaryware shuttle kilns in lieu of emission limits for acid gases
(HF and HCl), Hg and non-Hg HAP metals. The rationale for this work
practice standard is discussed in the paragraphs below.
1. Rationale for Setting Work Practice Standard in Lieu of Emission
Standards
a. Overview
    Shuttle kilns at sanitaryware facilities are a type of periodic
kiln used primarily to refire rejected pieces that have been machined
and reglazed (although some shuttle kilns are used as first-fire
units). Shuttle kilns are designed with a removable superstructure that
is tilted or raised using hydraulic struts to allow entrance and
egress. The main advantage of this type of kiln is that it can readily
accommodate changes in firing temperature profile and cycle time to
match the requirements of a wide variety of ceramic products. The
primary disadvantage of this type of kiln is much higher energy costs
per ton when compared to tunnel kilns and roller kilns.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See the memorandum titled ``Characterization of the Ceramic
Manufacturing Industry'' in the original Clay Ceramics NESHAP
docket, incorporated by reference into the docket for the proposed
Clay Ceramics rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Shuttle kilns are batch operated, meaning that a batch starts cold
and ends cold. The sanitaryware industry operates shuttle kilns on
batch cycle times of 18 to 38 hours, with the most common cycle times
between 22 and 30 hours. As shuttle kilns operate through a heating
cycle, temperatures are either in ramp-up or cool-down mode.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See the email titled ``Kohler's response to EPA question
regarding options for if and how shuttle kilns (periodic kilns)
should be addressed,'' in the docket for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Emissions and Testing
    Emission rates can vary over the batch cycle due to the temperature
cycle of the kiln. In order to accurately determine the total emissions
from a shuttle kiln cycle, emissions from the entire cycle period would
need to be tested.\60\ As with testing BSCP periodic kilns, testing
sanitaryware shuttle kilns for any less time could result in estimated
emissions that are either higher or lower than actual emissions,
depending on when during the kiln cycle the emissions are sampled.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Conducting a shuttle kiln test on even the shortest cycle time
would require a test crew to be on site for at least 24 hours and would
require the test team to have at least a dozen or more sampling train
set-ups or additional manpower on site to recover samples and turn-
around sampling trains for subsequent use during the test. It is
estimated that the test of a single shuttle kiln firing cycle with
analysis would cost $20,000 or more (2009 dollars). As with BSCP
periodic kilns, sampling a single firing cycle might not be adequate
for characterizing shuttle kiln emissions, due to variations during
firing cycles and variations across tests. To collect three test runs
of data, two additional cycles would need to be tested, bringing the
cost to $60,000 or more (2009 dollars) to test a single shuttle kiln.
Furthermore, the sanitaryware facilities covered under this proposed
Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule have three or more shuttle kilns each,
requiring additional tests at each facility.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

c. Test Methods and Costs
    As noted in section VI.K.1.a of this preamble, when EPA Method 26
or 26A is used, breakthrough of HCl can occur if emissions are variable
and experience large spikes, as appears to be the case for BSCP
periodic kilns. Testing of sanitaryware shuttle kilns could encounter a
similar problem. Another disadvantage to using Methods 26 or 26A for
testing throughout shuttle kiln cycles is the need for additional
manpower to operate the sampling trains around the clock and to recover
samples.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See the RTI memorandum titled ``Rationale for Establishing
Work Practice Standards for Periodic Brick Kilns'' in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An alternative to using Method 26 or 26A is to conduct the tests
using FTIR according to EPA Method 320, where HCl breakthrough is not
an issue. In addition, FTIR also provides near real-time emissions
data. However, the cost for FTIR testing would be similarly expensive
as testing by Method 26 or 26A throughout an entire cycle. The cost for
testing by FTIR is estimated to be $49,750 (2009 dollars) for a single
50-hour kiln cycle (the average cycle time for a BSCP periodic kiln).
Assuming a 50 percent reduction in cost for an average 25-hour
sanitaryware shuttle kiln cycle, the cost to test one cycle would still
be substantial (nearly $25,000 (2009 dollars)). If it were determined
that the variations in emissions from cycle to cycle were significant,
it might be necessary to test each kiln for two or more cycles in order
to develop a representative emission rate. Testing for a second cycle
would double the testing cost to almost $50,000 and testing for a third
cycle would triple the cost to almost $75,000 (2009 dollars). In
addition to these costs, additional costs would be incurred for testing
the kilns for PM emissions, which would have to be tested using a
manual test method (e.g., EPA Methods 5 or 17). If additional shuttle
kilns needed to be tested at each facility, the costs would be even
higher.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    While no formal cost-to-sales analysis was conducted for
sanitaryware shuttle kilns like the one conducted for BSCP periodic
kilns (see section IV.K.1 of this preamble), a similar informal
analysis was performed using the sales and production data provided in
the 2008 EPA survey responses (claimed as CBI by the respondent). Based
on this analysis, a similar conclusion (that testing is not
economically feasible) can be reached. Because the test costs are
similar and shuttle kilns represent a small share of total sanitaryware
production and revenues, the EPA has concluded that it would not be
economically feasible to require testing for shuttle kilns.
d. Feasibility of Numerical Emission Limits for Shuttle Kilns
    CAA section 112(h)(1) states that the Administrator may prescribe a
work practice standard or other requirements, consistent with the
provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where, in the
judgment of the Administrator, it is not feasible to enforce an
emission standard. CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) further defines the term
``not feasible'' in this context to apply when ``the application of
measurement technology to a particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations.''

    Because of the technological and economic limitations described
above, we conclude that it is not practicable to establish numerical
emission limits for sanitaryware shuttle kilns. Demonstrating
compliance with a numerical emissions limit for shuttle kilns is
technologically limited to testing procedures that are economically
infeasible for the sanitaryware industry. Consequently, we are
proposing a work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns under
CAA section 112(h).
2. Work Practice Standard
    The work practice standard for sanitaryware shuttle kilns proposed
in today's Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule includes the following
specific provisions: \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Each facility would have to use natural gas or
equivalent as the kiln fuel, except during periods of natural gas
curtailment or supply interruption.
     Each facility would have to develop and use a designed
firing time and temperature cycle for each product produced in the
shuttle kiln, by programming the time and temperature cycle into the
kiln or by tracking each step on a log sheet.
     Each facility would have to label each shuttle kiln
with the maximum load (in tons) that can be fired in the kiln during
a single firing cycle.
     For each firing load, each facility would have to limit
the total tonnage placed in the kiln to no more than the maximum
load and each facility would have to document the total tonnage
placed in the kiln to show that it is not greater than the maximum
load.
     Each facility would have to develop and implement
maintenance procedures for each kiln that specify the frequency of
inspection and maintenance of the following items:
    [cir] Calibration of temperature measuring devices
    [cir] Controls that regulate air-to-fuel ratios
    [cir] Controls that regulate firing cycles
     Each facility would have to develop and maintain
records required for each shuttle kiln, including logs to document
the proper operation of the shuttle kilns and logs of the
maintenance procedures used to demonstrate compliance with the
standard.

L. How did the EPA develop the startup and shutdown requirements?

    As stated in section V.E of this preamble, we are proposing work
practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile
roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and
sanitaryware tunnel kilns. We are not proposing alternate standards for
periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or
sanitaryware glaze spray booths.
    As noted in section V.B of this preamble, roller and tunnel kilns
and dryers typically operate continuously, so startups and shutdowns
are infrequent. Startup of a roller or tunnel kiln involves starting up
the burners based on a set procedure to raise the temperature of the
kiln to the proper operational temperature for manufacturing clay
ceramics. Shutdown of a roller or tunnel kiln is the process of cooling
the kiln from the proper operational temperature by stopping the
burners based on a set procedure. Similarly, startup and shutdown of a
dryer is the process of raising the temperature to the proper
operational temperature or lowering the temperature from the proper
operational temperature for manufacturing clay ceramics. When the
temperature of the kiln or dryer is below the proper operational
temperature, ceramic tile and sanitaryware manufacturers typically do
not push ceramics into the kiln, so the emissions are expected to be
much lower during startup and shutdown than during normal operations.
    While a kiln or dryer is heating to the proper operational
temperature during startup or cooling from the operational temperature
during shutdown, other parameters such as exhaust flow rate, moisture
content, O2 concentration and pressure are also changing. In
addition, the changes in these parameters may not happen smoothly and
consistently as startup or shutdown progresses, as the kiln or dryer
does not heat or cool evenly. The fluctuations in all these parameters
are not consistent with the relatively steady-state conditions needed
for valid, accurate results over three test runs using the measurement
methods proposed to be used to demonstrate compliance. Even if testing
were feasible during startup and shutdown, the emission limit formats
chosen for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are not
appropriate for use during periods other than normal operation.
Specifically, if there is no throughout in the kiln or dryer, emission
limits that are in a mass per throughput format would be essentially
meaningless.
    We did not receive any detailed information through the 2010 EPA
survey about the startup or shutdown of ceramic tile roller kilns,
floor tile press dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers or sanitaryware
tunnel kilns. However, ceramic tile roller kilns or sanitaryware tunnel
kilns are fired at similar or slightly higher temperatures to BSCP
tunnel kilns and they would likely use similar APCD to comply with the
standards. Therefore, we expect that the issues described in section
IV.E of this preamble associated with venting low-temperature kiln
exhaust through an APCD on a BSCP tunnel kiln would also apply to an
APCD on a ceramic tile roller kiln, floor tile press dryer, ceramic
tile spray dryer or sanitaryware tunnel kiln. We also expect that the
low temperature set points would be about the same as for BSCP tunnel
kilns, as those temperatures are based on the tolerance of the APCD.
    Therefore, we are proposing work practice standards for periods of
startup and shutdown for ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press
dryers, ceramic tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns with
APCD. For startup, the owner or operator would be required to vent the
exhaust from the kiln or dryer through the APCD by the time the kiln or
dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 [deg]F. In addition, no ceramics
or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer until the kiln
or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 [deg]F and the exhaust is
being vented through the APCD. For shutdown, the owner or operator
would be required to vent the exhaust from the kiln or dryer through
the APCD until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls below 300
[deg]F. In addition, no ceramics or other product may be introduced to
the kiln or dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to
300 [deg]F and the exhaust is no longer being vented through the APCD.
When the kiln or dryer exhaust is being vented through the APCD, the
owner or operator would be required to comply with the applicable
continuous compliance requirements described in section V.G of this
preamble.
    For ceramic tile roller kilns, floor tile press dryers, ceramic
tile spray dryers and sanitaryware tunnel kilns that can meet the
proposed standards without an APCD, there are no concerns about
damaging an APCD or procedures for bypassing an APCD. In addition, we
did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey regarding startup
and shutdown of uncontrolled kilns. However, as noted above, we
recognize that it is not feasible to conduct emission testing during
periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore, we are proposing work
practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for ceramic tile
roller kilns or sanitaryware tunnel kilns without an APCD. For startup,
no ceramics or other product may be introduced to the kiln or dryer
until the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature reaches 400 [deg]F. For
shutdown, no ceramics or other product may be put into the kiln or
dryer once the kiln or dryer exhaust temperature falls to 300 [deg]F.
When there are ceramics

in the kiln or dryer, the owner or operator would be expected to
demonstrate compliance with the emissions limitations (as described in
section V.G of this preamble).
    We are not proposing alternate standards (either work practice
standards or an alternate numeric emission limit) for periods of
startup and shutdown for ceramic tile glaze lines or sanitaryware glaze
spray booths. These sources would be expected to comply with the
emissions limitations (as described in section V.G of this preamble) at
all times when the source is operating, including periods of startup
and shutdown. We did not receive any data through the 2010 EPA survey
suggesting that alternate standards for periods of startup and shutdown
are needed for these sources. Glazing operations are intermittent in
nature during normal operations, so emissions during startup and
shutdown would not be expected to be different than emissions during
normal operations.

M. How did the EPA select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing and monitoring requirements that are
adequate to assure continuous compliance with the requirements of this
proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. These requirements are
described in detail in sections V.F and V.G of this preamble. We
selected these requirements based upon our determination of the
information necessary to ensure that the emission standards are being
met and the work practices are being followed and that APCD and
equipment are maintained and operated properly. Further, these proposed
requirements ensure compliance with this proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule without imposing a significant additional burden for
facilities that must implement them.
    We are proposing that initial compliance with the emission limits
for HF, HCl, PM, Hg and dioxins/furans be demonstrated by an initial
performance test. The proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would
also require 5-year repeat performance tests to ensure, on an ongoing
basis, that the APCD is operating properly and that its performance has
not deteriorated.
    The majority of test methods that this proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule would require for the performance stack tests (e.g.,
EPA Methods 5, 26A and 29) have been required under many other EPA
standards. Many of the emissions tests upon which the proposed emission
limits are based were conducted using these test methods.
    When a performance test is conducted, we are proposing that
parameter operating limits be determined during the test. To ensure
continuous compliance with the proposed emission limits, the proposed
Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule would require continuous parameter
monitoring of the kilns and APCD and maintaining these parameters
within the operating limits established during the performance test. We
selected these parameter monitoring requirements because they produce
data that will be useful to both the owners or operators and the EPA
for ensuring continuous compliance with the emission limits and/or
operating limits and because of their reasonable cost and ease of
execution.
    The APCD monitoring parameters included in the proposed rule were
chosen for the types of APCD commonly used in the clay ceramics
industry or anticipated to be used to comply with the proposed emission
limits. These parameters include lime injection rate (on a per ton of
fired product basis) for DIFF and DLS/FF; pressure drop, pH, liquid
flow rate and chemical addition rate (if applicable) for wet scrubbers;
activated carbon flow rate for ACI systems; periodic inspections for
water curtains; and annual inspections for baffles. If applicable for
demonstrating compliance with the HF/HCl standard, the kiln monitoring
parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule is
the kiln process rate. To demonstrate compliance with the dioxin/furan
standard for those affected sources without an ACI system, the
monitoring parameter included in the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule is the operating temperature for the affected
process (tunnel or roller kiln, ceramic tile spray dryer, floor tile
press dryer), because the formation and destruction of dioxins/furans
are influenced by temperature conditions. Many of these CPMS are
standard features on ceramic tile roller kilns and sanitaryware tunnel
kilns and their associated APCD and have also been used in other
standards for similar industries.
    In addition to parameter monitoring, the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule also includes a requirement for kilns equipped with
a FF (e.g., a DIFF, DLS/FF or stand-alone FF) to either install a BLD
system or monitor VE. Similar to the CPMS being proposed, BLD systems
have also been used in other standards in similar industries. We have
also determined that periodic VE checks are a reasonable alternative to
BLD systems for this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.
Periodic VE checks have also been proposed for affected sources without
an add-on control to demonstrate continuous compliance.

N. How did the EPA determine compliance times for the proposed rule?

    Section 112 of the CAA specifies the dates by which affected
sources must comply with the emission standards. Under CAA section
112(i)(1), new or reconstructed units must be in compliance with this
proposed rule immediately upon startup or the effective date of the
final rule, whichever is later. (The final action is expected to be a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the effective date of
the final rule is expected to be 60 days after the final rule is
published in the Federal Register.)
    Under CAA section 112(i)(3), existing sources are allowed up to 3
years after the effective date of the rule to comply with the final
rule. For this industry, we believe that 3 years for compliance is
necessary to allow adequate time to design, install and test any
control systems that may need to be retrofitted onto existing sources,
as well as obtain permits for the use of add-on controls.
    The compliance data for existing area sources that subsequently
become major sources is governed by 40 CFR 63.6(c)(5). We are proposing
that such sources have 3 years from the date they become major sources
to come into compliance, which is equivalent to the compliance period
for existing sources discussed in the previous paragraph. Further,
under the current regulations in 40 CFR 63.6(b)(7), where an area
source becomes a major source by the addition of equipment or
operations that meet the definition of new affected source under this
rule, that portion of the existing facility that is a new affected
source must be in compliance upon initial startup.

O. How did the EPA determine the required records and reports for the
proposed rule?

    We are proposing that owner/operators would be required to comply
with the applicable requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions,
subpart A of 40 CFR part 63, as described in Table 9 of the proposed
Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. We evaluated the General Provisions
requirements and included those we determined to be the notification,
recordkeeping and reporting necessary to ensure compliance with and
effective enforcement of, this proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing
rule.

    We are also proposing that the owner or operator keep records on
the firing time and temperature cycle for each sanitaryware shuttle
kiln, the type of product fired in each batch and the amount of product
fired in the shuttle kiln, to address the operational factors that
impact HAP emissions from shuttle kilns and demonstrate compliance with
the work practice standard for shuttle kilns (discussed further in
section VI.K.1 of this preamble).
    In addition, we are proposing that the owner or operator keep
records and submit a report of each malfunction and the corrective
action taken as part of the next semiannual compliance report. The
proposed compliance report would provide information on each type of
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused
or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit.
    This proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule also includes a
requirement for electronic reporting of performance test data, which is
discussed further in section III.I of this preamble.
    We request comment on ways that we could streamline the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule by relying on existing business practices.

P. How does the proposed rule affect permits?

    The CAA requires that sources subject to this Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule, once finalized, be operated pursuant to a permit
issued under an EPA-approved State operating permit program. The
operating permit programs are developed under title V of the CAA and
the implementing regulations under 40 CFR parts 70 and 71. If the
facility is operating in the first 3 years of an operating permit, the
owner or operator will need to obtain a revised permit to incorporate
the requirements of this Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. If the
facility is in the last 2 years of an operating permit, the owner or
operator will need to incorporate the requirements of this Clay
Ceramics manufacturing rule into the next renewal of the permit.

VII. Summary of the Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts of the
Proposed Standards

A. What are the cost and emissions reduction impacts?

    Table 13 of this preamble illustrates the costs and emissions
reductions for existing sources under the BSCP manufacturing and Clay
Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule.

                           Table 13--Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
                                                                     [2011 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cost (million)                                   Emissions reductions (tpy)
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Non-Hg
                 Industry                                                                             HAP
                                             Capital     Annual       HF        HCl        Cl2       metals       Hg         PM       PM2.5       SO2
                                                                                \b\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP......................................      $55.9      $19.0        410       24.0       2.09       3.79     0.0590        359        172        255
Clay Ceramics.............................      0.102     0.0458          0          0          0          0          0          0          0          0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes costs for APCD, testing and monitoring.
\b\ Includes antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and selenium.
\c\ PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter.

    The nationwide capital and annual costs of the proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule are expected to total $55.9 million and $19.0
million, respectively (2011 dollars). The nationwide HAP emissions
reductions achieved under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule are
expected to total 440 tpy. The methodology used to estimate the
nationwide costs and emissions reductions of the proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule is presented in the technical memoranda titled
``Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the BSCP
NESHAP'' and ``Monitoring and Testing Requirements and Costs for the
BSCP NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
    It is anticipated that all sanitaryware emission points will meet
the MACT floor emission limits in the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule, so no emission control costs or emissions
reductions are expected for these sources. However, these facilities
will incur monitoring and testing costs to demonstrate compliance with
the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule. These costs are
documented in the technical memorandum titled ``Monitoring and Testing
Requirements and Costs for the Clay Ceramics NESHAP'' in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290.
    There are no major sources producing ceramic tile. The five
facilities that were major sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA
surveys have already taken the necessary steps to become synthetic area
sources. Consequently, none of the known tile facilities will be
subject to the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule,
which means that no costs or emissions reductions are expected for tile
affected sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.
We request comment on whether we need to finalize the standards for
ceramic tile manufacturing even though there currently are no major
sources.

B. What are the secondary impacts?

    Table 14 of this preamble illustrates the secondary impacts for
existing sources under the BSCP and Clay Ceramics proposed rule.

                                 Table 14--Summary of Secondary Impacts for BSCP and Clay Ceramics Existing Sources \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Secondary air emissions (tpy)
             Control option              -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy impacts    Solid waste
                                                PM             PM2.5            CO              NOX             SO2         (MMBtu/yr)     impacts (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSCP....................................            1.93           0.646            3.60            28.0            81.7         268,000           8,630
Clay Ceramics...........................               0               0               0               0               0               0               0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ PM2.5 = particulate matter with particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxides; MMBtu/yr = million
  British thermal units per year.

    The relevant secondary impacts that were evaluated for the BSCP
manufacturing and Clay Ceramics manufacturing proposed rule includes
secondary air emissions, energy impacts and solid waste impacts.
Indirect or secondary air emissions are impacts that result from the
increased electricity usage associated with the operation of APCD to
meet the proposed limits (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity needed to operate the APCD and solid waste impacts consist
of the particulate captured by the APCD that is disposed of as waste
(not reused or recycled).
    Under the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, the nationwide
secondary emissions of the criteria pollutants PM, carbon monoxide
(CO), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 are expected
to total 115 tpy, with energy impacts of 268,000 million British
thermal units per year (MMBtu/yr) and solid waste impacts of 8,630 tpy.
The methodology used to estimate the nationwide secondary impacts of
the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule is presented in the technical
memorandum ``Development of Cost and Emission Reduction Impacts for the
BSCP NESHAP'' in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
    As noted in the previous section, it is anticipated that all
sanitaryware emission points will meet the MACT floor emission limits
in the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, so there are no
secondary impacts expected for these sources. There are no major
sources producing ceramic tile. The five facilities that were major
sources at the time of the 2008 and 2010 EPA surveys have already taken
the necessary steps to become synthetic area sources. Consequently,
none of the known ceramic tile facilities are expected to be subject to
the provisions of the Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, which means
that no secondary impacts are expected for ceramic tile affected
sources under the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule.

C. What are the economic impacts?

    For the BSCP Manufacturing source category, the average national
brick price under the proposed standards increases by 1.4 percent or
$3.29 per 1,000 Standard Brick Equivalent (SBE) (2011 dollars), while
overall domestic production falls by 1.1 percent or 38 million bricks
per year. Under the proposed standards, the EPA estimated that one to
two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
    Based on the results of the small entity screening analysis for
BSCP Manufacturing, the EPA concluded that it is not able to certify
that the BSCP manufacturing rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. As a result, the EPA initiated
a SBAR Panel and undertook an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).
    For clay ceramics manufacturing, one sanitaryware company owns
major sources and will incur costs. That affected company is not a
small business. The compliance costs are less than 0.001 percent of
sales for the affected company. Hence, the economic impact for
compliance is minimal. Because no small firms face significant control
costs, there is no significant impact on small entities. Thus, the
proposed Clay Ceramics regulation is not expected to have significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For more information on the benefits analysis and market analyses,
please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the BSCP
manufacturing rule, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

D. What are the social costs and benefits?

    Emission controls installed to meet the requirements of the
proposed BSCP manufacturing rule will generate benefits by reducing
emissions of HAP as well as criteria pollutants and their precursors,
NOX and SO2. SO2 and NOX
are precursors to PM2.5 (particulate matter with particles
less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter) and Nox is a precursor to ozone.
The criteria pollutant benefits are considered co-benefits for this
proposed rule. For this proposed rule, we were only able to quantify
the health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to
PM2.5 from emission reductions of SO2 and
directly emitted PM2.5 because of methodological limitations
associated with quantifying and monetizing HAP benefits. We estimate
the monetized co-benefits of the proposed BSCP NESHAP in 2018 to be $52
million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3-percent discount rate and
$47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7-percent discount
rate. Using alternate relationships between PM2.5 and
premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower co-benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\66\ A summary of the emission reduction
and monetized co-benefits estimates for this proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in
Table 15 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Roman, et al., 2008. ``Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S.,'' Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

Table 15--Summary of the Monetized PM2.5 Co-Benefits for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing NESHAP
                                                   for in 2018
                                        [Millions of 2011 dollars] \a, b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Emission         Total monetized co-         Total monetized co-
                Pollutant                   reductions        benefits (3 percent         benefits (7 percent
                                               (tpy)               Discount)                   Discount)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Directly emitted PM2.5..................             170  45 to 100.................  41 to 92.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           PM[bdi2].[bdi5] precursors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2.....................................             173  7 to 16...................  6 to 14.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ All estimates are for the analysis year and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum
  across rows. The total monetized co-benefits reflect the human health benefits associated with reducing
  exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of PM2.5 precursors, such as SO2 and directly emitted PM2.5. It is
  important to note that the monetized co-benefits do not include reduced health effects from exposure to HAP,
  direct exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), exposure to ozone, ecosystem effects or visibility impairment.

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

    These co-benefits estimates represent the total monetized human
health benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 from
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet this
proposed rule. Due to analytical limitations, it was not possible to
conduct air quality modeling for this proposed rule. Instead, we used a
``benefit-per-ton'' approach to estimate the benefits of this
rulemaking. To create the benefit-per-ton estimates, this approach uses
a model to convert emissions of PM2.5 precursors into
changes in ambient PM2.5 levels and another model to
estimate the changes in human health associated with that change in air
quality, which are then divided by the emissions in specific sectors.
These benefit-per-ton estimates were derived using the approach
published in Fann et al. (2012),\67\ but they have since been updated
to reflect the studies and population data in the 2012 p.m. National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) RIA.\68\ Specifically, we
multiplied the benefit-per-ton estimates from the ``Non-EGU Point
other'' category by the corresponding emission reductions.\69\ All
national-average benefit-per-ton estimates reflect the geographic
distribution of the modeled emissions, which may not exactly match the
emission reductions in this rulemaking and thus, they may not reflect
the local variability in population density, meteorology, exposure,
baseline health incidence rates or other local factors for any specific
location. More information regarding the derivation of the benefit-per-
ton estimates for this category is available in the technical support
document, which is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Fann, N., K.R. Bakerand C.M. Fulcher. 2012.
``Characterizing the PM2.5-related health benefits of
emission reductions for 17 industrial, area and mobile emission
sectors across the U.S.'' Environment International 49 41-151.
    \68\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
    \69\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Technical
support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5
precursors from 17 sectors. Research Triangle Park, NC. January.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
because the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow
differentiation of effects estimates by particle type. Even though we
assume that all fine particles have equivalent health effects, the
benefit-per-ton estimates vary between precursors depending on the
location and magnitude of their impact on PM2.5 levels,
which drive population exposure.
    It is important to note that the magnitude of the PM2.5
co-benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function
for premature mortality. We cite two key empirical studies, one based
on the American Cancer Society cohort study \70\ and the extended Six
Cities cohort study.\71\ In the RIA for this rule, which is available
in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291, we also include benefits
estimates derived from expert judgments (Roman et al., 2008) as a
characterization of uncertainty regarding the PM2.5-
mortality relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Krewski, C.A., III, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D.
Krewski, K. Itoand G.D. Thurston. 2002. ``Lung Cancer,
Cardiopulmonary Mortality and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate
Air Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association
287:1132-1141.
    \71\ Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz J 2012. ``Chronic
Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009.'' Environ Health
Perspect. July;120(7):965-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering a substantial body of published scientific literature,
reflecting thousands of epidemiology, toxicology and clinical studies,
the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter \72\
documents the association between elevated PM2.5
concentrations and adverse health effects, including increased
premature mortality. This assessment, which was twice reviewed by the
EPA's independent Science Advisory Board, concluded that the scientific
literature consistently finds that a no-threshold model most adequately
portrays the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship.
Therefore, in this analysis, the EPA assumes that the health impact
function for fine particles is without a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, we are more confident in the magnitude of the risks we
estimate from simulated PM2.5 concentrations that coincide
with the bulk of the observed PM concentrations in the epidemiological
studies that are used to estimate the benefits. Likewise, we are less
confident in the risk we estimate from simulated PM2.5
concentrations that fall below the bulk of the observed data in these
studies. Concentration benchmark analyses (e.g., lowest measured level
(LML) or one standard deviation below the mean of the air quality data
in the study) allow readers to determine the portion of population
exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above different
concentrations, which provides some insight into the level of
uncertainty in the estimated PM2.5 mortality benefits. There
are uncertainties inherent in identifying any particular point at which
our confidence in reported associations becomes appreciably less and
the scientific evidence provides no clear dividing line. However, the
EPA does not view these concentration benchmarks as a concentration
threshold below which we would not quantify health benefits of air
quality improvements.
    For this analysis, policy-specific air quality data are not
available due to time or resource limitations and thus, we are unable
to estimate the percentage of premature mortality associated with this
specific rule's emission reductions at each PM2.5 level. As
a surrogate measure of mortality impacts, we provide the percentage of
the population exposed at each PM2.5 level using the source
apportionment modeling used to calculate the benefit-per-ton estimates
for this sector. Using the Krewski, et al. (2009) study, 93 percent of
the population is exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or
above the LML of 5.8 [micro]g/m\3\. Using the Lepeule, et al. (2012)
study, 67 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 8
[micro]g/m\3\. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only
one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline
incidence rates population and change in air quality. Therefore,
caution is warranted when interpreting the LML assessment for this rule
because these results are not consistent with results from rules that
had air quality modeling.
    Every benefit analysis examining the potential effects of a change
in environmental protection requirements is limited, to some extent, by
data gaps, model capabilities (such as geographic coverage) and
uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economic studies used to
configure the benefit and cost models. Despite these uncertainties,

we believe the benefit analysis for this proposed rule provides a
reasonable indication of the expected health benefits of the rulemaking
under a set of reasonable assumptions. This analysis does not include
the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS RIA \73\ because we lack the necessary air
quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits model. In
addition, we have not conducted air quality modeling for this proposed
rule and using a benefit-per-ton approach adds another important source
of uncertainty to the benefits estimates. The 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of
our results to various assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. EPA-452/R-12-
003. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division. December. Available at http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/finalria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It should be noted that the monetized co-benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including exposure to HAP, NOX and ozone
exposure, as well as ecosystem effects and visibility impairment.
Although we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to
provide monetized estimates for this proposed rule, we include a
qualitative assessment of these unquantified benefits in the RIA for
the rule.
    The specific control technologies for the proposed rule are
anticipated to have minor secondary impacts, including an increase of
28 tons of NOX, less than 2 tons of PM, 3 tons of CO and 82
tons of SO2 each year. Given the insignificant increase,
only secondary effects of PM and SO2 were included in the
monetary evaluation of the actual benefits.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rule, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and
Structural Clay Products NESHAP,'' which is available in Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291.

VIII. Public Participation and Request for Comment

    We request comment on all aspects of the proposed rule for BSCP
Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, including any alternate
approaches that the EPA is considering (see section IV.Q of this
preamble for further discussion on these approaches).
    During this rulemaking, we conducted outreach to small entities and
convened a SBAR Panel to obtain advice and recommendation of
representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject
to the requirements of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. (Note: We
did not convene a SBAR Panel for the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule because none of the major source facilities subject
to the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are owned by a small
entity.) As part of the SBAR Panel process, we conducted outreach with
representatives from various small entities that would be affected by
the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. We met with these small entity
representatives (SERs) to discuss the potential rulemaking approaches
and potential options to decrease the impact of the BSCP manufacturing
rulemaking on their industries/sectors. We distributed outreach
materials to the SERs; these materials included background on the BSCP
manufacturing rulemaking, possible regulatory approaches, preliminary
cost and economic impacts and possible rulemaking alternatives. We met
with SERs from the BSCP industry that will be impacted directly by the
proposed BSCP manufacturing rule to discuss the outreach materials and
receive feedback on the approaches and alternatives detailed in the
outreach packet. The Panel received written comments from the SERs
following the meeting in response to discussions at the meeting and the
questions posed to the SERs by the agency. The SERs were specifically
asked to provide comment on regulatory alternatives that could help to
minimize the BSCP manufacturing rule's impact on small businesses. A
copy of the final Panel report is available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more.'' Accordingly, the EPA submitted
this action to OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the dockets for this action.
    In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
``Regulatory Impact Analysis: Proposed Brick and Structural Clay
Products NESHAP.'' A copy of the analysis is available in the docket
for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291) and the analysis is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA's study estimates that affected BSCP facilities will incur
total annualized costs of $21 million (2011 dollars) under the proposed
BSCP manufacturing rule, including costs of emission controls, testing
and monitoring, along with recordkeeping and reporting costs for
facilities that have testing and monitoring. Total annualized costs for
the alternate approach are estimated to be $31 million (2011 dollars).
The EPA gathered information on firm sales and overall industry
profitability for firms owning affected BSCP facilities. The EPA
estimated that one to two BSCP manufacturing facilities are at
significant risk of closure under the proposed standards. Under the
alternate approach, the EPA estimated that two to six BSCP
manufacturing facilities are at significant risk of closure.
    The EPA also conducted an assessment of the benefits of the
proposed rule, as described in section VII of this preamble. These
estimates reflect the monetized human health benefits of reducing cases
of morbidity and premature mortality among populations exposed to
PM2.5 reduced by this rule. Data, resource and
methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the
benefits from several important benefit categories, including benefits
from reducing exposure to close to 450 tons of HAP each year for the
proposed standards and exposure to as high as 740 tons of HAP each year
through the alternate standards, as well as ecosystem effects and
visibility impairment due to PM emissions. In addition to reducing
emissions of PM precursors such as SO2, this rule would
reduce several non-Hg HAP metals emissions (i.e., antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, nickel and
selenium) each year. The EPA estimates the total monetized co-benefits
to be $52 million to $120 million (2011 dollars) at a 3 percent
discount rate and $47 million to $110 million (2011 dollars) at a 7
percent discount rate on a yearly average in 2018 for the proposed
standards.
    Based on the EPA's examination of costs and benefits of the
proposed BSCP

NESHAP, the EPA believes that the benefits of the proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule will exceed the costs.
    The EPA also examined the costs and economic impacts associated
with the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. Only two firms are
estimated to incur costs as a result of the proposed Clay Ceramics
manufacturing rule and they only incur costs associated with testing,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. Total annualized costs are
only $55,900 (2011 dollars) and both firms' estimated costs of
complying with the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule are less
than 0.001 percent of their sales.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the BSCP and Clay
Ceramics proposed rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
    The ICR document prepared by the EPA for the BSCP Manufacturing
NESHAP has been assigned the EPA ICR number 2509.01. The ICR document
prepared by the EPA for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP has been
assigned the EPA ICR number 2510.01. The information requirements are
based on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are
mandatory for all operators subject to national emissions standards.
These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to the EPA policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
    In addition to the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions, the proposed rule
includes paperwork requirements associated with initial and 5-year
repeat testing for selected process equipment, electronic reporting of
performance test results, parameter monitoring, preparation of an OM&M
plan, maintenance and inspection of process and control equipment,
compliance with work practice standards and periods of malfunction.
    There are 92 BSCP facilities that are currently major sources of
HAP. An estimated 25 of these facilities are projected to become
synthetic area sources by promulgation rather than comply with the BSCP
standards. The remaining 67 facilities are expected to be subject to
the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule. For these 67 facilities, the
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the proposed
BSCP standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective
date of the standards) is estimated to be 15,063 labor hours per year,
at a cost of $796,255/yr. No capital costs associated with monitoring,
testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be incurred during
this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs are estimated
to be $983/yr. The total burden for the federal government (averaged
over the first 3 years after the effective date of the standards) is
estimated to be 103 hours per year, at a total labor cost of $5,329 per
year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.) Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    There are three clay ceramics facilities that are currently major
sources of HAP and would be subject to the Clay Ceramics manufacturing
rule that we are proposing. For these three facilities, the annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with the Clay Ceramics
standards (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of
the standards) is estimated to total 674 labor hours per year at a cost
of $35,653/yr. As with the BSCP standards, no capital costs associated
with monitoring, testing, recordkeeping or reporting are expected to be
incurred during this period. The annual operating and maintenance costs
are estimated to be $44/yr. The total burden for the federal government
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the
standards) is estimated to be 4.6 hours per year, at a total labor cost
of $239 per year. (All costs are in 2011 dollars.)
    Because BSCP and clay ceramics facilities are not required to come
into full compliance with the standards until 3 years after
promulgation, much of the respondent burden (e.g., performance tests,
inspections, notification of compliance status, compliance report,
records of compliance data and malfunctions) does not occur until the
fourth year following promulgation.
    For the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule, we estimate an average
annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 31,805 labor hours per
year, at a cost of $1,681,231/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also
estimate annualized capital costs of $262,119/yr and annual operating
and maintenance costs of $350,075/yr over this period, for a total
annualized cost of $612,194/yr. The average annual burden for the
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 3,953 hours
per year, at a total labor cost of $207,946 per year. (All costs are in
2011 dollars.)
    For the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule, we estimate an
average annual recordkeeping and reporting burden of 1,448 labor hours
per year, at a cost of $76,519/yr, for years 4 through 6. We also
estimate annualized capital costs of $27,368/yr and annual operating
and maintenance costs of $21,101/yr over this period, for a total
annualized cost of $48,469/yr. The average annual burden for the
federal government for years 4 through 6 is estimated to be 180 hours
per year, at a total labor cost of $9,448 per year. (All costs are in
2011 dollars.)
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for each rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0291 (for the BSCP Manufacturing NESHAP) and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0290 (for the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP). Submit any
comments related to the ICR to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this action for where to submit comments to
the EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for the EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after December 18, 2014, a comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 20, 2015. The
final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the
information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field. Small entities affected by the
proposed BSCP NESHAP are small businesses that own BSCP manufacturing
facilities. Affected parent companies fall under the Clay Building
Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120) industry and the
SBA (2013) defines a small business in this industry as a firm with
fewer than 750 employees. Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP
facilities, there are 36 parent companies that are small businesses.
Small entities affected by the proposed Clay Ceramics NESHAP are small
businesses that own clay ceramics manufacturing facilities. Affected
parent companies of ceramic tile facilities fall under the Clay
Building Material and Refractories Manufacturing (NAICS 327120)
industry and affected parent companies of sanitaryware facilities fall
under the Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS
327110) industry. However, we have determined that no small entities
would be subject to the clay ceramics proposed standards.
    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an IRFA that
examines the impact of the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule on small
entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that
impact. The IRFA is included in Section 5 of the RIA and is available
for review in the docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291) and is summarized below.
1. Need for the Rule
    The EPA is required under CAA section 112(d) to establish emission
standards for each category or subcategory of major and area sources of
HAP listed for regulation in section 112(b). These standards are
applicable to new or existing sources of HAP and shall require the
maximum degree of emission reduction. In the Administrator's judgment,
the pollutants emitted from BSCP manufacturing facilities cause or
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health. Consequently, NESHAP for the
BSCP source category are being proposed.
2. Objectives and Legal Basis for the Rule
    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires the EPA to set emissions
standards for HAP emitted by major stationary sources based on the
performance of the MACT. The MACT standards for existing sources must
be at least as stringent as the average emissions limitation achieved
by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which the
Administrator has emissions information) or the best performing five
sources for source categories with less than 30 sources (CAA section
112(d)(3)(A) and (B)). For new sources, MACT standards must be at least
as stringent as the control level achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source (CAA section 112(d)(3)). The EPA also must
consider more stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' control options. When
considering beyond-the-floor options, the EPA must consider not only
the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP, but must take into
account costs, energy and nonair environmental impacts when doing so.
This rule is being proposed to comply with CAA section 112(d).
3. Affected Small Entities
    Of 44 parent companies owning BSCP facilities, 36 parent companies
are small businesses. The EPA computed the ratio of estimated
compliance costs to company sales (cost-to-sales ratio) to measure the
magnitude of potential impacts on small companies. Under the proposed
standards, the EPA estimated that one to two small brick manufacturing
facilities are at significant risk of closure. Under the alternate
approach, two to five small brick manufacturing facilities are at
significant risk of closure.
4. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
    Respondents would be required to provide one-time and periodic
notifications, including initial notification, notification of
performance tests, and notification of compliance status. Respondents
would also be required to submit semiannual reports documenting
compliance with the rule and detailing any compliance issues, and they
would be required to submit the results of performance tests to the
EPA's ERT. Respondents would be required to keep documentation
supporting information included in these notifications and reports, as
well as records of the operation and maintenance of affected sources
and APCD at the facility.
5. Related Federal Rules
    The EPA determined that there are no related federal rules for this
source category.
6. Significant Alternatives
    The EPA has included provisions in the proposed rule where possible
to minimize the burden on all affected entities, including small
entities. As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, as amended by Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the EPA also
conducted outreach to small entities and convened a SBAR Panel to
obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the small
entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed BSCP
manufacturing rule's requirements. Seventeen SERs associated with brick
manufacturing participated. On June 26, 2013, the SBAR Panel held an
outreach meeting/teleconference with the SERs. In addition to the
materials that the SERs received for the pre-Panel outreach, the SERs
were provided with background information to help them prepare for the
teleconference and prepare their comments on the proposed rulemaking.
    Consistent with the RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of the IRFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the
docket for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2013-0291).
    The SBAR made several recommendations to enhance flexibility for
small businesses complying with the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule.
The EPA adopted the panel recommendations to the extent feasible, as
described below:
     The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practices
for dioxin and take comment on the feasibility of work practice
standards for Hg and other metals. The discussion of work practices for
Hg and other metals should clearly identify any areas where the agency
believes that the data do not support work practices to allow for
meaningful comments and also discuss work practice alternatives with
sufficient specificity that they can be fully considered as an
alternative in the final BSCP manufacturing rule.
    Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practices for dioxin/
furan. Although the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg and for
non-Hg HAP metals, the EPA is specifically

requesting comment in the proposal on whether or not work practice
standards for non-Hg HAP metals and for Hg are appropriate.
     The panel recommended that the EPA co-propose both a
health-based limit and MACT limits for acid gases unless the EPA
determines it lacks sufficient information to propose a numerical
health-based limit.
    Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing a health-based emission limit
for acid gases in lieu of MACT limits.
     The panel recommended that the EPA propose separate
subcategories for kilns based on size if it reduces the financial
impact and that the EPA should take comment and solicit data on
subcategorization based on raw materials, fuels and other factors.
    Proposed rule: The EPA evaluated the data to determine if
subcategories of sources were supported, including subcategories by
kiln size. As a result, the EPA is proposing emission limits for Hg in
two subcategories based on kiln size (large, small). However, although
the EPA has the discretion to subcategorize by kiln size, the EPA
determined it was not necessary to exercise this discretion for all
pollutants, including total non-Hg HAP metals. Instead, the EPA is
proposing a choice of emission limits for PM or total non-Hg HAP metals
for all tunnel kilns. The ability to comply with the equivalent lb/hr
total non-Hg HAP metals limit provides additional flexibility for small
tunnel kilns and tunnel kilns with a low metals content in the PM
emissions.
     The panel recommended that the EPA specifically request
information, at proposal, on how the presence of sawdust dryers would
affect emissions and control costs.
    Proposed rule: The proposed rule requests comment on whether the
EPA should create a subcategory for kilns fired with sawdust (with or
without a sawdust dryer).
     The panel recommended that the EPA propose work practice
standards for startup and shutdown.
    Proposed rule: The EPA is proposing work practice standards for
periods of startup and shutdown for tunnel kilns.
     The panel recommended that the EPA set the floor based on
12 percent of the entire source category if the EPA can establish that
the data available to the agency represent the best-performing sources
consistent with section 112 of the CAA and relevant case law.
    Proposed rule: The test data for PM (the surrogate for total non-Hg
HAP metals) showed that kilns controlled with a FF-based APCD (e.g.,
DIFF, DLS/FF) are the better performers and at least 12 percent of the
kilns in the industry are controlled with a FF-based APCD. Therefore,
the MACT limit is based on the top 12 percent of the kilns in the
industry (i.e., the best-performing sources with a FF-based APCD).
However, the EPA was unable to establish that the data available to the
agency represented the best-performing sources for Hg control.
Therefore, the MACT limit for Hg is based upon the top 12 percent of
sources for which we had test data.
    We invite comments on all aspects of the proposal and its impacts
on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on
State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. This action
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for state, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. This action is not
expected to impact state, local or tribal governments. The nationwide
annual cost to the affected industry is estimated to be $19.0 million
per year for the proposed BSCP manufacturing rule and $54,100 per year
for the proposed Clay Ceramics manufacturing rule (2011 dollars). Thus,
this action is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205
of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. It contains no
requirements that apply to such governments, nor does it impose
obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by state governments and nothing in
this proposal will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order
13132 and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications
between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically
solicits comment on this proposed action from state and local
officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The action imposes
requirements on owners and operators of BSCP and clay ceramics
manufacturing facilities and not tribal governments. Although Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this action, the EPA specifically
solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal
officials.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance. Nevertheless, this action will result
in reductions in emissions of HF, HCl, Cl2, dioxins/furans
and Hg and other metals, which will provide some increased protection
of health for people of all ages including children.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution
or use of energy. This action will not adversely directly affect
productivity, competition or prices in the energy sector.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA
proposes to use the following four VCS as acceptable alternatives to
the EPA test methods for the purpose of this rule. ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-
1981, Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is acceptable as an
alternative to Method 3A and 3B for the manual procedures only and not
the instrumental procedures. ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' is
acceptable as an alternative to Methods 26 and 26A.
    ASTM D6784-02 (Reapproved 2008), ``Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' is
acceptable as an alternative to Method 29 (portion for Hg only).
    ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), ``Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is acceptable as an
alternative to Method 320 with the following conditions: (1) the test
plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D 6348-03,