[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 206 (Monday, October 26, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65469-65570]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25724]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 206

October 26, 2015

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about the final rule for
BSCP Manufacturing and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing, contact Ms. Sharon
Nizich, Minerals and Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Program
Division (D243-04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; Telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. This preamble includes several
acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, data
inventories and risk modeling. While this list may not be exhaustive,
to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the
EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

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

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

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

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

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary

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

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

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

B. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

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

D. Judicial Review

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

II. Background Information

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

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

B. What actions preceded this final rule?

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

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

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

III. Summary of the Final Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal and Rationale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                              To demonstrate        To demonstrate
                               compliance with non-  compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals         Hg HAP metals and
                               standard:             acid gas standards:
                               Monitor       Monitor
                               scrubber pressure     scrubber liquid
                               drop..                flow rate.
                               Maintain at   Maintain at
                               or above average      or above highest
                               pressure drop         average flow rate
                               during PM/non-Hg      during PM/non-Hg
                               HAP metals test..     HAP metals and acid
                                                     gas tests.
                              To demonstrate
                               compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals and
                               acid gas standards:
                               Monitor
                               scrubber liquid
                               flow rate..
                               Maintain at
                               or above average
                               flow rate during PM/
                               non-Hg HAP metals
                               and acid gas tests..
BSCP kilns with no add-on     To demonstrate        To demonstrate
 control.                      compliance with non-  compliance with non-
                               Hg HAP metals         Hg HAP metals
                               standard:             standard:
                               Perform       Perform
                               daily, 15-minute VE   daily, 15-minute VE
                               observations..        observations
                               If VE are     If VE are
                               observed, initiate    observed, promptly