Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AM90

OAR ID: [OAR-2002-0088, FRL-8008-2]

NOTICE: RULES

ACTION: Air pollutants, hazardous; national emission standards:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Refractory Products Manufacturing

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on April 14, 2006 without further notice, unless adverse comments are received by March 15, 2006 or by March 30, 2006 if a public hearing is requested. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which amendments will become effective and which amendments are being withdrawn due to adverse comment.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing refractory products manufacturing facilities, which were promulgated on April 16, 2003, under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The amendments clarify the testing and monitoring requirements and startup and shutdown requirements for batch processes, make certain technical corrections, and add recent changes to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions.

SUMMARY: Refractory products manufacturing,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action include those listed in the following table: Table 1.Regulated Entities Table Category NAICS* Examples of regulated entities Industrial..................... 327124 Clay refractories manufacturing plants. Industrial..................... 327125 Nonclay refractories manufacturing plants. *North American Industry Classification System

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.9782 of the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's document will also be available on the http://WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg on EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

Comments. We are publishing the direct final rule without prior proposal because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments because the amendments clarify several of the requirements of the NESHAP, bring the NESHAP into consistency with the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63, and make technical corrections to the NESHAP. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend the NESHAP for refractory products manufacturing facilities if adverse comments are filed. If we receive adverse comment on one or more distinct amendments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public which amendments will become effective, and which amendments are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address all public comments on withdrawn amendments in a subsequent final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

[[Page 7417]]

Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the direct final rule amendments is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by April 14, 2006. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the direct final rule which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the direct final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.

Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Background
II. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS

A. Emission Testing

B. Control Device Operation

C. Operating Limits

D. Monitoring

E. Other Changes

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

The EPA promulgated the NESHAP for new and existing refractory products manufacturing facilities on April 16, 2003 (68 FR 18730) as 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS. Shortly after promulgation of the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, EPA also promulgated amendments to the General Provisions to 40 CFR part 63 (68 FR 32586, May 30, 2003). After reviewing the final amendments to the General Provisions and comparing those to the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, we discovered discrepancies between sections of the General Provisions as cited in the NESHAP and the newly amended sections of the General Provisions. We also identified minor technical errors and other specific sections of the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP that needed clarification. Today's action includes amendments to the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP that clarify the requirements for testing, control device operation, operating limits, and monitoring.
II. Amendments to 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart SSSSS

A. Emission Testing

The Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP specify several requirements that pertain to the testing of batch process sources. Because emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from a batch process source can vary significantly over the course of a batch cycle, the NESHAP specify emission limits in terms of the peak emissions period. In today's action, we are revising the definition of the peak emissions period in terms of the applicable emission limits to include separate definitions for the 3hour peak total hydrocarbons (THC) mass emissions period, which applies to batch process sources that comply with the THC percentage reduction limit; the 3hour peak THC emissions concentration period, which applies to batch sources that satisfy the THC emission concentration limit; and the 3hour peak hydrogen fluoride (HF) mass emissions period, which pertains to the emission limits for batch process clay refractory products kilns. All references to the peak emissions period in the tables to 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS, have been revised for consistency.

The NESHAP include provisions to allow the owner or operator of an affected batch process source to develop an emissions profile and use the profile to limit emissions testing to the peak emissions period. In today's action, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9802 to clarify that emissions profiles for sources subject to the THC emission limits must be developed using data collected at the maximum organic HAP processing rate. This amendment also clarifies that a new emissions profile must be developed if a facility wants to use an emissions profile to limit testing to the peak emissions period at a process, but increases its maximum organic HAP processing rate at that process. In addition, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9802 to clarify that emissions profiles for batch process clay refractory kilns must be developed using data from when the kiln is processing the clay refractory product with the highest uncalcined clay processing rate.

We are amending 40 CRF 63.9798(a) to eliminate the reference to permit renewal, and stating that subsequent performance tests must be conducted at least every 5 years. Item 1(b)(i)(1) of Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 is amended to clarify that a sampling port is also required at the control device inlet if the owner or operator plans to develop an emissions profile or use the provision for reducing the operating temperature of a thermal or catalytic oxidizer on an affected batch process source. In both cases, sampling is required at the control device inlet. Item 8(a)(i)(5) of Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 is amended to specify the THC concentration in terms of the outlet of the control device. We also made other minor changes to this provision in Table 4 to simplify the wording.

Item 13 of Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 is amended to eliminate the reference to the THC percentage reduction limit. We have clarified that regardless of which THC emission limit applies to a specific source, the owner or operator of the source must measure not only the THC concentration, but also the oxygen concentration at the control device inlet for at least the 1hour period that immediately follows the temperature reduction. This measurement is necessary for demonstrating that the source is meeting the limit of 20 parts per million dry volume (ppmvd) THC, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, after the oxidizer temperature has been reduced.

Item 13.a.5 of Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 is amended to clarify that only the THC emissions concentration limit applies following any reduction in the oxidizer temperature. We received comment on the proposed rule (67 FR 42108, June 20, 2002) requesting a second emission limit be allowed for sources wanting to meet a percentage reduction limit rather than an emission concentration limit. The commenter believed that since EPA had promulgated percentage reduction limits for other MACT standards to reduce emissions of THC, and since air pollution control devices are usually rated and installed with a minimum percent reduction achieved by the devices, that emission limit would be simpler to meet. At promulgation of the final rule (68 FR 18730, April 16, 2003), we changed the rule to allow regulated sources to meet either the percentage reduction limit or the concentration limit.

In the final rule, we allowed the choice between either the percentage reduction limit or the concentration limit, but required owners and operators to meet the selected emission limit during all times of operation. We also allowed owners and operators the option to turn off the control device when it was no longer needed. However, for those owners or operators
[[Page 7418]]
meeting the percentage reduction compliance option, it is not possible to meet that limit if the control device is not in operation. We believe that conserving energy is a beneficial option for all owners and operators, and regardless of the compliance option selected, all should have the opportunity to benefit from turning off the control device when it is no longer needed. Thus, we are clarifying that whether an owner or operator shows compliance with the percentage reduction limit or the concentration limit, compliance with the rule for a unit with a control device no longer in operation may only be demonstrated by meeting the concentration limit; that is, when the THC emissions are below 20 ppmvd corrected to 18 percent oxygen from the heated process unit. Owners and operators in this case may choose to meet the percentage reduction limit before turning off the control device and may show compliance with the concentration limit after turning off the control device.

Item 14(a)(i)(1) of Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 is amended to specify that the performance tests must be performed while processing the clay refractory product with the highest uncalcined clay processing rate.

B. Control Device Operation

Refractory products manufacturing plants typically produce a wide range of products, some of which may contain organic HAP binders or additives, while other products may contain only inorganic binders or additives that do not contain or form HAP. Many plants do not have dedicated thermal process units (e.g., dryers and kilns) for each type of product they manufacture and instead, use the same process units to manufacture products that emit HAP and products that do not contain or emit HAP. Recognizing this situation, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9792 of the NESHAP to clarify that control devices used to comply with the emission limits established by 40 CFR part 63, subpart SSSSS, do not have to be operated when an otherwise affected process unit is processing products that do not contain or release HAP. This amendment applies to sources subject to the THC emission limits as well as the emission limits for HF and hydrogen chloride (also known as hydrochloric acid).

Table 3 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63, which specifies work practice standards, includes several options for controlling emissions of polycyclic organic matter from shape preheaters and pitch working tanks used in the manufacture of pitchimpregnated refractory products. Options include exhausting the affected source to a thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is comparable to a thermal or catalytic oxidizer that is used to meet the emission limits for an affected defumer or coking oven. To clarify what is meant by a ``comparable'' thermal or catalytic oxidizer, we are amending 40 CFR 63.9824 to include a definition of ``comparable control device.''

C. Operating Limits

The Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP refer to the operating limit as the ``maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate.'' We are amending the definition of maximum organic HAP processing rate in 40 CFR 63.9824 to distinguish between the operating limit and the actual processing rate measured during the performance test.

The Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP include several operating limits for clay refractory products kilns that are controlled by dry limestone adsorbers (DLA). We are amending the NESHAP to eliminate the operating limits of maintaining freeflowing limestone throughout the DLA because the term ``freeflowing'' may not be appropriate for the grade of limestone used in DLA. The remaining operating limits specified for DLA in the NESHAP are adequate for ensuring compliance with the emission limits for clay refractory products kilns.

As specified in Table 2 (Requirements for Establishing Operating Limits) of the rule, Subpart SSSSS of Part 63, owners and operators of certain thermal process sources of organic HAP are required to establish an operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate. The organic HAP processing rate is a function of the amount of organic HAP in the raw materials and the amounts of those raw materials in the refractory product formulation. Because there are minor variations in the content of organic HAP in a specific binder or additive, the operating limit for the maximum organic HAP processing rate can inadvertently be exceeded without changing the product formulation. In today's action, we are amending the procedure for establishing the operating limit and clarifying that minor exceedances of the maximum organic HAP processing rate established during the performance test are not violations of the operating limit. Specifically, we are amending items 3(b) and 8(b) of Table 4 (Requirements for Performance Tests) to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63 to be consistent with the requirements in Table 2 that reflect a 10 percent allowance when calculating the operating limit.

Today's action amends the procedures for determining minimum temperature operating limits for thermal and catalytic oxidizers that are used to control emissions from certain batch process sources of organic HAP as they pertain to sources that comply with the provisions for reducing the operating temperature of a thermal or catalytic oxidizer.

We are also amending subpart SSSSS to clarify that owners or operators of batch process sources controlled with thermal or catalytic oxidizers must measure the oxidizer operating temperature throughout each entire test run.

D. Monitoring

The Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP require THC continuous emission monitoring systems on thermal process sources of organic HAP that use process changes or control devices other than thermal or catalytic oxidizers to meet the THC emission limits. We are amending 40 CFR 63.9800(i)(1) by adding a reference to sources that use process changes to meet the emission limits.

We are also amending 40 CFR 63.9800(i) to state that such sources must maintain the 3hour block average THC concentration at or below 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen.

Today's action amends the definition of ``deviation'' in 40 CFR 63.9824 to include failure to provide adequate continuous monitoring systems (CMS) data for demonstrating compliance with any emission limit or other requirement. In addition, we are amending the requirement that the owner or operator of an affected source that is required to use a CMS to meet an operating limit must report any deviations from those operating limits.

E. Other Changes

We are amending the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP to include definitions for Shutdown and Startup to preclude unnecessary reporting of batch process source operation.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines ``significant regulatory
[[Page 7419]]
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB approved the information collection requests for the NESHAP for refractory products manufacturing pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The OMB assigned OMB control number 20600515 (EPA ICR No. 2040.02) to these information collection requests (ICR). A copy of the ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; by email at auby.susan@epa.gov; or by calling (202) 5661672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr .

Today's action makes clarifying changes to the NESHAP for refractory products manufacturing and imposes no new information collection requirements on the industry. Because there is no additional burden on the industry as a result of the direct final rule amendments, the ICR has not been revised.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administrations' regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any notfor profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule amendments on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action includes minor corrections and clarifications to the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP that do not add any additional requirements.

Although the direct final rule amendments will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of the direct final rule amendments on small entities. The EPA has limited the amendments to changes that clarify ambiguities of the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP, correct citations to the General Provisions, and clarify the complex batch testing requirements of the Refractory Products Manufacturing NESHAP. The EPA believes that the amendments will simplify the NESHAP and will not add additional burden to regulated entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law No. 1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA's regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that today's direct final rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the direct final rule amendments significantly or uniquely impact small governments because there are no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Thus, today's direct final rule amendments are not subject to the
[[Page 7420]]
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''

The direct final rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State or local governments, and the direct final rule amendments will not supercede State regulations that are more stringent. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' The direct final rule amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own or operate refractory products manufacturing facilities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the direct final rule amendments.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866 and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. Today's direct final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. In addition, the direct final rule amendments have been determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. We have concluded that the direct final rule amendments are not likely to have any adverse energy effects. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law No. 104113; 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

The direct final rule amendments implement clarifications and corrections to the NESHAP for refractory product manufacturing, but do not change any technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing the direct final rule amendments and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the direct final rule amendments in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The direct final rule amendments are effective on April 14, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart SSSSS[Amended]
2. Section 63.9792 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
c. Adding a new paragraph (f).
Sec. 63.9792 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?
* * * * *
(b) Except as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section, you must
[[Page 7421]]
always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i). During the period between the compliance date specified for your affected source in Sec. 63.9786 and the date upon which continuous monitoring systems have been installed and validated and any applicable operating limits have been established, you must maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control equipment.
* * * * *
(f) For any affected source that is subject to any of the emission limits specified in Table 1 to this subpart, you do not have to operate the control device on that affected source under the conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For any source that is subject to the THC emissions concentration limit or the THC percentage reduction limit, you do not have to operate the control device on that source when none of the refractory products that are being processed by that source contain or form an organic HAP.
(2) For any new clay refractory products kiln that is subject to the productionbased mass emission limits or the percentage reduction limits for hydrogen flouride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl), you do not have to operate the control device on that kiln when none of the refractory products that are being processed by that kiln are clay refractory products, as defined in Sec. 63.9824.
* * * * *
3. Section 63.9798 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; and
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (d).
Sec. 63.9798 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? (a) You must conduct a performance test at least every 5 years following the initial performance test.
* * * * *
(c) If you own or operate a source that is subject to the emission limits specified in items 2 through 9 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test on the source(s) listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section before you start production of any refractory product for which the organic HAP processing rate is likely to exceed the maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate, as defined in items 3(b) and 8(b) of Table 4 to this subpart, established during the most recent performance test on that same source.
* * * * *
(2) Each affected kiln that follows an affected shape dryer or curing oven in the same process line and is used to process the refractory product with the higher organic HAP processing rate. (d) If you own or operate a kiln that is subject to the emission limits specified in item 5 or 9 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must conduct a performance test on the affected kiln following any process changes that are likely to increase organic HAP emissions from the kiln (e.g., a decrease in the curing cycle time for a curing oven that precedes the affected kiln in the same process line).
* * * * *
4. Section 63.9800 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (g)(1);
b. Revising paragraph (g)(3);
c. Revising paragraph (i)(1) introductory text; and
d. Adding paragraphs (i)(1)(iv) to (vi).
Sec. 63.9800 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating limits?
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) To determine compliance with the total hydrocarbon (THC) emission concentration limit listed in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your emission concentration corrected to 18 percent oxygen for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13FE06.000

Where:
CTHCC = THC concentration, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd)
CTHC = THC concentration (uncorrected), ppmvd
CO2 = Oxygen concentration, percent
* * * * *
(3) To determine compliance with productionbased HF and HCl emission limits in Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate your mass emissions per unit of uncalcined clay processed for each test run using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13FE06.001

Where:
MP = mass emissions of specific HAP (HF or HCl) per unit of production, kilograms of pollutant per megagram (pounds per ton) of uncalcined clay processed
ER = mass emissions rate of specific HAP (HF or HCl) during each performance test run, kilograms (pounds) per hour
P = average uncalcined clay processing rate for the performance test, megagrams (tons) of uncalcined clay processed per hour
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) For sources subject to the THC concentration limit specified in item 3, 4, 7, or 8 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must satisfy the requirements specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section.
* * * * *
(iv) You must meet the data reduction requirements specified in Sec. 63.8(g).
(v) You must maintain the 3hour block average THC concentration at or below 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen.
(vi) To calculate the oxygen correction specified in paragraph (i)(1)(v) of this section, you may use oxygen concentration measurements concurrent with THC concentration measurements, the average oxygen concentration measured during the most recent performance test on the affected source, or other oxygen concentration measurements that are representative of normal operation for the affected source.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.9802 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9802 How do I develop an emissions profile?
(a) If you decide to develop an emissions profile for an affected batch process source, as indicated in item 8(a)(i)(4) or 17(b)(i)(4) of Table 4 to this subpart, you must measure and record mass emissions of the applicable pollutant throughout a complete batch cycle of the affected batch process source according to the procedures described in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
(1) If your affected batch process source is subject to the THC concentration limit specified in item 6(a), 7(a), 8, or 9 of Table 1 to this subpart or the THC percentage reduction limit specified in item 6(b) or 7(b) of Table 1 to this subpart, you must measure and record the THC mass emissions rate at the inlet to the control device using the test methods, averaging periods, and procedures specified in items 10(a) and (b) of Table 4 to this subpart for each complete hour of the batch process cycle and while the source is processing the product with the maximum organic HAP processing rate.
[[Page 7422]]
(2) If your affected batch process source is subject to the HF and HCl percentage reduction emission limits in item 11 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must measure and record the HF mass emissions rate at the inlet to the control device through a series of 1hour test runs using one of the test methods specified in item 14(a) of Table 4 to this subpart for each complete hour of the batch process cycle and while the source is processing the product with the highest uncalcined clay processing rate.
(b) You must develop a new emissions profile if you meet all of the conditions specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) You own or operate a batch process source that is subject to the emission limits specified in item 6(a), 6(b), 7(a), 7(b), 8, or 9 of Table 1 to this subpart.
(2) You use an emissions profile to limit emission testing to the 3hour peak emissions period.
(3) You begin manufacturing a new refractory product for which the organic HAP processing rate is likely to exceed the maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test on that same source.
6. Section 63.9812 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9812 What notifications must I submit and when?
* * * * *
(b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected source before April 16, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after April 16, 2003.
(c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you start up your new or reconstructed affected source on or after April 16, 2003, you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
* * * * *
7. Section 63.9816 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.9816 What records must I keep?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(9) If you operate a source that is subject to the THC emission limits specified in item 2 or 6 of Table 1 to this subpart and is controlled with a catalytic oxidizer, records of annual checks of catalyst activity levels and subsequent corrective actions. * * * * *
8. Section 63.9824 is amended as follows:
a. Revising paragraph (3) and adding paragraph (4) to the definition of Deviation;
b. Revising the definitions of Maximum organic HAP processing rate and Peak emissions period; and
c. Adding the definitions of Comparable control device, Shutdown, and Startup.
Sec. 63.9824 What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

Comparable control device means, subject to paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this definition, a control device with design and operating parameters that are comparable to the reference control device. (1) For a thermal oxidizer, a comparable control device is either: (i) A thermal oxidizer with a residence time at least as long as, and a combustion chamber operating temperature at least as high as the reference thermal oxidizer; or
(ii) A control device that has been demonstrated to control emissions to a level that is comparable to or better than the level of emissions control achieved by the reference thermal oxidizer. (2) For a catalytic oxidizer, a comparable control device is either:
(i) A catalytic oxidizer with a space velocity no greater than, and a catalyst bed inlet temperature at least as high as the reference catalytic oxidizer; or
(ii) A control device that has been demonstrated to control emissions to a level that is comparable to or better than the level of emissions control achieved by the reference catalytic oxidizer. (3) For other control devices, a comparable control device is one that has been demonstrated either through engineering calculations or emission testing to control emissions to a level that is comparable to or better than the level of control achieved by the reference control device.
* * * * *

Deviation * * *.
(3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart; or
(4) Fails to provide adequate monitoring data for demonstrating compliance with any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, or work practice standard) or other applicable requirement established by this subpart due to a malfunction or failure of any CMS required by this subpart.

* * * * *

Maximum organic HAP processing rate means the maximum rate at which the mass of organic HAP materials in refractory shapes are processed in an affected process unit. (See also the definition of organic HAP processing rate.)

* * * * *

Peak emissions period means the period of consecutive hourly average emissions of the applicable pollutant that is greater than any other period of consecutive hourly average emissions for the same pollutant over the course of a specified batch process cycle, as defined in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition. The peak emissions period is a function of the rate at which the temperature of the refractory shapes is increased, the mass and loading configuration of the shapes in the process unit, the constituents of the refractory mix, and the type of pollutants emitted.
(1) The 3hour peak THC mass emissions period is the period of 3 consecutive hours over which the sum of the uncontrolled hourly THC mass emissions rates is greater than the sum of the uncontrolled hourly THC mass emissions rates for any other period of 3 consecutive hours during the same batch process cycle.
(2) The 3hour peak THC emissions concentration period is the period of 3 consecutive hours over which the sum of the THC concentrations, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, is greater than the sum of the THC concentrations at the same sampling location, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, for any other period of 3 consecutive hours during the same batch process cycle.
(3) The 3hour peak HF mass emissions period is the period of 3 consecutive hours over which the sum of the uncontrolled hourly HF mass emissions rates is greater than the sum of the uncontrolled hourly HF mass emissions rates for any other period of 3 consecutive hours during the same batch process cycle.

* * * * *

Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source. For an affected batch process source, shutdown means the cessation of operation during a batch cycle. Shutdown does not include normal periods between batch cycles when the batch process source is not in operation.

Startup means the setting into operation of an affected source. For an affected batch process source, startup means the initial startup of the source
[[Page 7423]]
or the startup of the source following maintenance, replacement of equipment, or equipment repairs. Startup does not include routine recharging of a batch process source at the start of a batch cycle. * * * * *
9. Table 1 to subpart SSSSS is amended as follows:
a. Revising items 6.a and b;
b. Revising items 7.a and b;
c. Revising item 8;
d. Redesignating items 9, 10, and 11 as items 10, 11, and 12; e. Adding a new clarification as item 9;
f. Revising newly redesignated items 11.a and b; and
Table 1 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63.Emission Limits [As stated in Sec. 63.9788, you must comply with the emission limits for affected sources in the following table:] You must meet the following For . . . emission limits . . . * * * * * * *
6. Batch process units that are a. The 2run block average THC controlled with a thermal or catalytic concentration for the 3hour oxidizer. peak THC emissions concentration period must not exceed 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, at the outlet of the control device; or
b. The 2run block average THC mass emissions rate for the 3 hour peak THC mass emissions period must be reduced by at least 95 percent. 7. Batch process units that are a. The 2run block average THC equipped with a control device other concentration for the 3hour than a thermal or catalytic oxidizer. peak THC emissions concentration period must not exceed 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, at the outlet of the control device; or
b. The 2run block average THC mass emissions rate for the 3 hour peak THC mass emissions period must be reduced by at least 95 percent. 8. Batch process units that use process The 2run block average THC changes to reduce organic HAP concentration for the 3hour emissions. peak THC emissions concentration period must not exceed 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, at the outlet of the process gas stream.
9. Batch process units that have turned The 2run block average THC off the control device or are not concentration for the 3hour equipped with a control device. peak THC emissions concentration period must not exceed 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, at the outlet of the process gas stream.
10. Batch process kilns that are not The 2run block average THC equipped with a control device. concentration for the 3hour peak THC emissions concentration period must not exceed 20 ppmvd, corrected to 18 percent oxygen, at the outlet of the process gas stream.
11. Each new continuous kiln that is a. The 3hour block average HF used to produce clay refractory emissions must not exceed products. 0.019 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.038 pounds per ton kiln that is (lb/ton)) of uncalcined clay processed, OR the 3hour block average HF mass emissions rate must be reduced by at least 90 percent; and
b. The 3hour block average HCl emissions must not exceed 0.091 kg/Mg (0.18 lb/ton) of uncalcined clay processed, OR the 3hour block average HCl mass emissions rate must be reduced by at least 30 percent.
* * * * * * *
[[Page 7424]]
10. Table 2 to subpart SSSSS is amended as follows:
a. Revising item 1.c;
b. Revising item 4;
c. Revising 7;
d. Revising items 8.a and b and adding items 8.c through e; e. Revising items 9.a and b, and adding new items 9.d through f; and f. Removing item 11.b and redesignating items 11.c and d as items 11.b and c, respectively.
Table 2 to Subpart SSSSS of Part 63.Operating Limits [As stated in Sec. 63.9788, you must comply with the operating limits for affected sources in the following table] For . . . You must . . . 1. Each affected source listed in Table 1 to this * * * subpart. b. Capture emissions and vent them through a closed system; and c. Operate each control device that is required to comply with this subpart on each affected source during all periods that the source is operating, except where specified in Sec. 63.9792(e) and (f), item 2 of this table, and item 13 of Table 4 to this subpart; and * * * * * * * * * * 4. Each affected continuous process unit............... Maintain the 3hour block average organic HAP processing rate (pounds per hour) at or below the maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test. * * * * * * * 7. Each affected batch process unit.................... For each batch cycle, maintain the organic HAP processing rate (pounds per batch) at or below the maximum allowable organic HAP processing rate established during the most recent performance test. 8. Batch process units that are equipped with a thermal a. Except as specified in item 8.b. of this table, oxidizer. maintain throughout the entire batch cycle the hourly average operating temperature in the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber at or above the minimum allowable operating temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 11 of Table 4 to this subpart; and b. If complying with the provisions for reducing the thermal oxidizer operating temperature, as specified in item 13 of Table 4 to this subpart, satisfy the requirements of items 8.c. through 8.e. of this table; c. From the start of the batch cycle until the batch process unit reaches its maximum temperature, maintain the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature at or above the minimum allowable temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 11 of Table 4 to this subpart; d. From the time when the batch process unit reaches its maximum temperature, maintain the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature at or above the minimum allowable temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 11 of Table 4 to this subpart, for a length of time that equals or exceeds the length of time between the process unit reaching its maximum temperature and the start of the thermal oxidizer temperature reduction during the most recent performance test; e. For the remainder of the batch process cycle, maintain the thermal oxidizer combustion chamber temperature at or above the reduced thermal oxidizer temperature established during the most recent performance test, as specified in item 13 of Table 4 to this subpart. [[Page 7425]]
9. Batch process units that are equipped with a a. Except as specified in item 9.b. of this table, catalytic oxidizer. maintain throughout the entire batch cycle the hourly average operating temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the minimum allowable operating temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 12 of Table 4 to this subpart; and b. If complying with the provisions for reducing the catalytic oxidizer operating temperature, as specified in item 13 of Table 4 to this subpart, satisfy the requirements of items 9.d through 9.f of this table; and c. Check the activity level of the catalyst at least every 12 months. d. From the start of the batch cycle until the batch process unit reaches its maximum temperature, maintain the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the minimum allowable temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 12 of Table 4 to this subpart; e. From the time when the batch process unit reaches its maximum temperature, maintain the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the minimum allowable temperature established during the most recent performance test, as determined according to item 12 of Table 4 to this subpart, for a length of time that equals or exceeds the length of time between the process unit reaching its maximum temperature and the start of the catalytic oxidizer temperature reduction during the most recent performance test; f. For the remainder of the batch process cycle, maintain the temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed at or above the reduced catalyst bed inlet temperature established during the most recent performance test, as specified in item 13 of Table 4 to this subpart. * * * * * * * 11. Table 4 to subpart SSSSS is revised to read as follows: Table 4 to Subpart SSSSS to Part 63.Requirements for Performance Tests [As stated in Sec. 63.9800, you must comply with the requirements for performance tests for affected sources in the following table:] According to the following For . . . You must . . . Using . . . requirements . . . 1. Each affected source listed in a. Conduct performance i. The requirements of (1) Record the date of the Table 1 to this subpart. tests. the General test; and Provisions in subpart (2) Identify the emission A of this part and source that is tested; and the requirements to (3) Collect and record the this subpart. corresponding operating parameter and emission test data listed in this table for each run of the performance test; and (4) Repeat the performance test at least every 5 years; and (5) Repeat the performance test before changing the parameter value for any operating limit specified in your OM&M plan; and (6) If complying with the THC concentration or THC percentage reduction limits specified in items 2 through 9 of Table 1 to this subpart, repeat the performance test under the conditions specified in items 2.a.2 and 2.a.3. of this table; and (7) If complying with the emission limits for new clay refractory products kilns specified in items 10 and 11 of Table 1 to this subpart, repeat the performance test under the conditions specified in items 14.a.i.4. and 17.a.i.4. of this table. [[Page 7426]]
b. Select the i. Method 1 or 1A of (1) To demon

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For further information contact Susan Fairchild, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (C50405), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone number (919) 5415167; fax number (919) 5415600; email address: fairchild.susan@epa.gov.