
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31234-31236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11749]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0291; FRL-9946-63-OAR]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of action denying in part and granting in part petitions 
for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action provides notice that the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied in part 
and granted in part petitions for reconsideration of the final National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Brick and 
Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing and the final NESHAP for 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing published in the Federal Register on 
October 26, 2015.

DATES: This action is effective on May 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Nizich, Minerals and

[[Page 31235]]

Manufacturing Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-04), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-2825; email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    This Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, 
and the letters and accompanying enclosures addressing the petitions 
for reconsideration are available in the dockets the EPA established 
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 on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 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 Air Docket is (202) 566-1742. 
This Federal Register document, the petitions for reconsideration, and 
the letters with the accompanying enclosure addressing the petitions 
can also be found on the EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) indicates which 
Federal Courts of Appeals have venue for petitions for review of final 
EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that the petitions for 
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit if: (i) The agency action consists of ``nationally 
applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the 
Administrator,'' or (ii) such actions are locally or regionally 
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide 
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds 
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    The EPA has determined that its denial of the petitions for 
reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 
307(b)(1) because the actions directly affect the BSCP Manufacturing 
NESHAP and Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, which are nationally 
applicable regulations. Thus, any petitions for review of the letters 
and enclosures denying the petitions for reconsideration described in 
this document must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit by July 18, 2016.
    To the extent that EPA is granting the petitions for 
reconsideration with respect to certain issues, such grant is not final 
agency action, but only begins an agency process to consider whether 
the rule should be revised. If EPA in the future takes final agency 
action to revise the rule, notice of such action will be published in 
the Federal Register and judicial review will be available at that 
time.

III. Description of Action

    The initial NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and initial NESHAP for 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing were published in the Federal Register on 
May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subparts 
JJJJJ and KKKKK, respectively, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. 
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). Following 
the 2007 vacatur of the 2003 rule, the EPA collected additional data 
and information to support new standards for the BSCP and clay ceramics 
industries. This information is contained in the dockets for both 
rules, which are available at http://www.regulations.gov. On December 
18, 2014, the EPA proposed new NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and for 
Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (79 FR 75622). The EPA received additional 
data and comments during the public comment period. These data and 
comments were considered and analyzed and, where appropriate, revisions 
to the two NESHAP were made. The NESHAP for BSCP Manufacturing and 
NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing were finalized on October 26, 
2015 (80 FR 65470).
    On December 23, 2015, Kohler Company submitted a petition for 
reconsideration of the final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (80 
FR 65470). In support of its petition, Kohler Company claimed that: (1) 
The final rule introduced new stack temperature monitoring requirements 
for demonstrating compliance with the dioxin/furan emission limits 
without an opportunity for comment by the petitioner; (2) the EPA 
failed to adequately respond to the petitioner's public comments 
regarding visible emissions monitoring in the response to comments and 
final rule; (3) the EPA should reconsider its exclusion of emissions 
averaging from the final rule as a compliance option for clay ceramics 
manufacturing; (4) the EPA should reconsider its improper use of 
scrubber emissions data from the petitioner's South Carolina Kiln 10 
for determining the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor; 
(5) the EPA should reconsider the frequency of onerous and unnecessary 
visual inspection requirements for system ductwork and control device 
equipment for water curtain spray booths; and (6) the EPA should 
clarify the testing threshold for cooling stacks to be tested to limit 
it to those stacks with an oxygen content at or below 20.4 percent.
    Also on December 23, 2015, the Brick Industry Association (BIA) 
submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final rule for BSCP 
Manufacturing (80 FR 65470). In support of its petition, the BIA 
claimed that: (1) The EPA failed to give notice that it would change 
its method for calculating the existing source MACT floor for emissions 
of non-mercury (Hg) hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals; (2) the EPA 
incorrectly used tests conducted below capacity in its revised MACT 
floor approach; (3) the EPA failed to give notice that it would include 
a variability calculation in its determination of the MACT floor for Hg 
or how it would make this variability calculation; (4) it was 
impracticable for the petitioner to request a variability factor for 
non-Hg metal emission limits for the final rule; and (5) the EPA failed 
to give notice that it would include opacity as a compliance method for 
the non-Hg HAP metals standard.
    On December 24, 2015, the Tile Council of North America, Inc. 
(TCNA) and its members submitted a petition for reconsideration of the 
final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (80 FR 65470). In support of 
its petition, the TCNA claimed that: (1) In promulgating the final 
rule, the EPA relied on legal positions/rationales for regulating 
ceramic tile that were advanced for the first time in the preamble to 
the final rule; (2) for the final rule, the EPA introduced for the 
first time the technical rationale that Method 23 field

[[Page 31236]]

blank spike recoveries self-validate the dioxin/furan emissions data 
used to set dioxin/furan standards; and (3) the EPA failed to respond 
to public comments regarding the cost of the final rule to those 
sources that the EPA postulates might at some time in the future become 
subject to the rule.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA sets forth the criteria for 
reconsideration. That section states 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. If the person raising an objection can 
demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impractical to raise such 
objection within such time 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, the Administrator shall convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration of the rule and provide the same procedural rights as 
would have been afforded had the information been available at the time 
the rule was proposed.''
    The EPA has carefully considered the petitions and supporting 
information. In separate letters to the petitioners, the EPA 
Administrator, Gina McCarthy, denied in part and granted in part the 
Kohler Company petition, denied the BIA and TCNA petitions, and 
explained the reasons for the denials. These letters and the 
accompanying enclosures are available in the dockets for this action.

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed in the letters and accompanying enclosure 
to the petitioners, the petitions to reconsider the final NESHAP for 
BSCP Manufacturing and final NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing are 
denied in part and granted in part.

    Dated: May 12, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-11749 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


