AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action finalizes certain amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category. The final amendments are being issued in response to a petition for reconsideration filed by an affected industry (Kohler Company) on the final rule promulgated on October 26, 2015, as well as our review of the 2015 rule with respect to certain other issues raised by Kohler. This action revises the temperature monitoring methodology used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the dioxin/furan (D/F) emissions limit of the final rule. In addition, we are addressing concerns raised by Kohler regarding visible emissions (VE) monitoring of tunnel kiln stacks for continuous compliance with particulate matter (PM) and mercury (Hg) emission limitations. This action also amends the requirements for weekly visual inspections of system ductwork and control device equipment for water curtain spray booths. Lastly, this action amends the NESHAP to include provisions for emissions averaging, makes technical corrections, and adds certain definitions.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on November 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

The U.S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/​ website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (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 form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/​, or in hard copy form at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue 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 this final action, contact Mr. Brian Storey, 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) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email address: storey.brian@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms here:

BSCP brick and structural clay products

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI Confidential Business Information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

D/F dioxins/furans

EJ environmental justice

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)

Hg mercury

HON Hazardous Organic NESHAP

lb pounds

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants

No. number

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PM particulate matter

POC products of combustion

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

U.S. United States

U.S.C. United States Code

v. versus

VE visible emissions

Background information. On August 20, 2018, the EPA proposed revisions to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are finalizing revisions to the rule. The EPA briefly summarizes the more significant comments we received regarding the proposed rule that have resulted in changes to the final rule, and we provide our responses in this preamble. A more comprehensive summary of the public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing; Amendments—Background Information for Final Rule: Summary of Public Comments and Responses. A “track changes” version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in the docket.

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

B. What actions preceded these final amendments?

III. Summary of the Final Amendments

IV. Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Amendments

A. Visible Emissions Monitoring of Tunnel Kiln Exhaust

B. Weekly Visual Inspections of Water Curtain Spray Booths

C. Emissions Averaging

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated industrial source categories that are the subject of this final action. Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive but rather provides a guide for readers regarding the entities that this final action is likely to affect. The final amendments will be directly applicable to the affected sources. Federal, state, local and tribal government entities would not be affected by this final action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576, July 16, 1992) and Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List (see EPA-450/3-91-030), the Clay Products Manufacturing source category as originally listed included any facility engaged in manufacturing of clay products such as brick, vitrified clay pipe, structural clay tile, and clay refractories. The Clay Products Manufacturing source category has since been replaced by the Brick and Structural Clay Products (BSCP) Manufacturing source category and the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing source category (see 67 FR 47894, July 22, 2002).

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

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this final action is available on the internet. Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this final action at https://www.epa.gov/​stationary-sources-air-pollution/​brick-and-structural-clay-products-national-emission-standards. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final amendments and key technical documents at this same website.

A redline version of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes in this final action is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290).

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 31, 2019. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 112 and 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412 and 7607(d)(7)(B)).

B. What actions preceded these final amendments?

The initial NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing was published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2003 (68 FR 26690), and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK, pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. These 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 clay ceramics industry. This information is contained in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/​ (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290). On December 18, 2014, the EPA proposed the new NESHAP 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 NESHAP were made. The NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing was finalized on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65470).

On December 23, 2015, Kohler Company (Kohler) petitioned the EPA for reconsideration of the final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0316). On August 20, 2018, we proposed revisions to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP based on the information provided by Kohler in their petition and information collected by the EPA (83 FR 42066). Public comments were received on the proposal requesting some changes to the proposed revisions. This action finalizes the revisions to the NESHAP and, where deemed appropriate, incorporates the requested changes. The intent of these amendments is to provide flexibility to the clay ceramics manufacturing industry, while maintaining the emissions and operational standards of the NESHAP.

III. Summary of the Final Amendments

The EPA is issuing the following amendments to 40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK, in response to Kohler's petition for reconsideration on the October 26, 2015, final rule (80 FR 65470):

• Revise the temperature monitoring methodology used to demonstrate continuous compliance with the D/F emissions limits from sanitaryware first-fire tunnel kilns;
• Provide an alternative to the monitoring provisions for VE from tunnel kiln exhaust stacks;
• Amend the requirements for weekly visual inspections of system ductwork and control device equipment for water curtain spray booths;
• Define cooling stacks in the rule and differentiate cooling stacks from kiln exhaust stacks for compliance purposes; and
• Include provisions to allow emissions averaging for emissions from existing tunnel kilns and glaze spray booths and make associated revisions to the definition of affected source and recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

We are finalizing all the amendments listed above as proposed except for the provisions to allow emissions averaging. A description of the changes made to the emissions averaging provisions since proposal along with the rationale for those changes is provided in section IV of this preamble.

This final rule achieves meaningful burden reduction by providing regulated facilities with the ability to use existing monitoring equipment and removing the requirements for periodic inspections that we have determined are not necessary to demonstrate compliance. We also more clearly identify which stacks are cooling stacks; thus, avoiding the possibility that a source might be required to perform an emission test on a stack that emits only cooling air. Finally, this action provides additional compliance flexibility for sources to meet certain emissions limits by averaging; thereby, simplifying compliance. All of these actions should reduce the overall burden to the regulated sources.

This action is limited to the specific issues raised in the petition for reconsideration, plus some minor technical corrections. There are no changes to emission limits as a result of these final amendments. Technical corrections are being issued as proposed to correct inaccuracies that were promulgated in the final rule, replace text that might be considered confusing, and correct outdated information. These changes are described in Table 2 of this preamble.

IV. Rationale for Changes to the Proposed Amendments

A. Visible Emissions Monitoring of Tunnel Kiln Exhaust

In its petition for reconsideration, Kohler stated that the EPA failed to adequately respond to Kohler's public comments regarding VE monitoring in the Agency's response to comments document and in the preamble for the final rule. In their comments on the December 18, 2014, proposal, Kohler had argued that VE monitoring is not a useful parameter to assess kiln operation nor to assess hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. Kohler requested that the EPA open a new public comment period to reconsider and respond to Kohler's concerns. In response to the petition, we proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.8620 in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP, adding a new paragraph (e)(2) which provided an alternative to VE testing that allowed sources to demonstrate compliance by maintaining the kiln temperature profile within acceptable parameters and, for any incidence where the kiln exceeds its temperature profile, monitor VE at each kiln stack as specified.

In public comments on the proposed amendments, a commenter questioned Kohler's assertion about VE monitoring and recommended that the EPA define what a “temperature profile” is and clarify what it means to “maintain” it v. “exceed” it. In response to this comment, we are finalizing amendments to 40 CFR 63.8620(e)(2), the operating limits table (Table 2), and the continuous compliance table (Table 7) to clarify that the owner or operator will be required to maintain their kiln operating temperature within the range of acceptable temperatures (i.e., a temperature profile) established for each kiln and product. For any incident where the kiln is operating outside of its acceptable temperature range (i.e., exceeding its temperature profile) for the product being fired, the owner or operator will be required to record the incident as a deviation, and perform corrective action in accordance with the facility's operation, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan.

B. Weekly Visual Inspections of Water Curtain Spray Booths

In its petition for reconsideration, Kohler requested that the EPA reconsider the frequency of visual inspection requirements for system ductwork and control device equipment for water curtain spray booths. In response to the petition, we proposed amendments to the operating limits table (Table 2) and the continuous compliance table (Table 7) to remove the requirement to conduct weekly visual inspections of the system ductwork and control equipment for leaks for all glaze spray operations equipped with water curtains.

In public comments on the proposal, one commenter stated that if the EPA is relying on operator observations of visible particulate on the product to determine when there is a leak in the spray booth ductwork, the rule should require operators to log such incidents and report them as deviations when they occur. We recognize the commenter's concerns and agree that if there is an indication of particulate in the glaze of the product, then it is likely there is a failure in the ductwork requiring corrective action, and, therefore, this would be considered a deviation. We are finalizing amendments to Table 7 to require owners or operators to record as deviations any observations of particulates or other impurities getting into the glaze that has been sprayed onto a piece of ware and perform corrective action in accordance with the facility's OM&M plan.

C. Emissions Averaging

In its petition for reconsideration, Kohler requested that the EPA allow the use of emissions averaging as a compliance option in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP for existing tunnel kilns and glaze spray booths. In response to the petition, we proposed amendments to 40 CFR 63.8595 in the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP that included alternative emissions averaging limits for the following:

• PM and Hg, in units of pounds per ton (lb/ton) of fired product for existing floor tile roller kilns;
• PM and Hg in units of lb/ton of fired product for existing wall tile roller kilns;
• PM and Hg, in units of lb/ton of greenware fired for existing first-fired sanitaryware tunnel kilns;
• PM and Hg, in units of lb/ton of first-fired glaze sprayed (dry weight basis) for existing tile glaze lines with glaze spraying; and
• PM, in units of lb/ton of first-fire glaze sprayed (dry weight basis), for existing sanitaryware manual, spray machine, or robot glaze applications.

The proposed conditions required for emissions averaging included the following: (1) Emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources at a single existing affected source; (2) emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources subject to the Clay Ceramics Manufacturing NESHAP; (3) emissions averaging would not be permitted between two or more different affected sources; (4) emissions averaging would not be permitted between two or more sources in different subcategories; (5) new sources could not use emissions averaging; and (6) averaged emissions could not exceed 90 percent of the applicable emission limit, which translates to a discount factor of 1.1 applied to actual emissions.

The emissions averaging provisions that we proposed were based, in part, on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to the final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994).

In public comments on the proposal, two commenters requested that the EPA remove the requirement that averaged emissions cannot exceed 90 percent of the applicable emission limit, and a third commenter stated that no justification was provided for the selection of 90 percent (instead of an alternate value, such as 80 or 99 percent). While averaging should only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the total quantity of any HAP will not be greater than it could be if each individually affected unit complied separately with the applicable standard, one commenter stated this requirement can be demonstrated without the “90 percent of the limit” safety factor. The commenter noted that the EPA has allowed emissions averaging across similar emission units in other NESHAP, such as the Reinforced Plastics Composites NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart WWWW), and stated that similar logic for averaging should be applied to this subpart to eliminate the unnecessary factor.

In response to these comments, we have re-evaluated whether a discount factor is appropriate for the emissions averaging provisions in this subpart and have concluded that a discount factor is not necessary here. The issues faced in the HON, where a discount factor of 1.1 was applied to the emissions averaging calculation, included significant differences in toxicity of the various HAP and a situation where facilities were applying emissions controls. This is not the case here. All facilities are meeting the relevant standards in this subpart without added controls and are using pollution prevention where needed. Accordingly, a straight average, without any discount factor, is appropriate in this situation. This straight-average approach is consistent with other rules, such as the Reinforced Plastic Composites NESHAP. Therefore, the EPA has decided not to include a discount factor in 40 CFR 63.8595(h), Equation 9, and 40 CFR 63.8620, Equation 10 to calculate the average weighted emissions.

In addition, a commenter noted that the proposed emissions averaging provisions prohibited emissions averaging of new sources but did not prohibit emissions averaging of reconstructed sources. The commenter stated that reconstructed sources should not be allowed to use the emissions averaging provisions. We agree with the commenter, and in the final amendments the EPA has revised 40 CFR 63.8595(h)(1) to indicate that neither new nor reconstructed sources can be included in the emissions averaging.

Finally, we note that Equations 9 through 11 were all proposed to be added to 40 CFR 63.8595(h). However, one commenter noted an apparent discrepancy between Equation 9 and Equation 10, and it appears that the commenter misunderstood that Equation 9 is intended to determine initial compliance based on an initial performance test, while Equation 10 is intended to determine ongoing compliance based on the latest performance test. Equation 11 is also used for ongoing compliance and is intended to determine the 12-month rolling average of the monthly weighted average emission rates. Therefore, in the final amendments, Equations 10 and 11 have been moved to 40 CFR 63.8620, the section that describes how to demonstrate continuous compliance.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

This action will have no cost, environmental, energy, or economic impacts beyond those impacts presented in the October 26, 2015, final rule for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing and may result in a cost savings due to the changes in monitoring and testing requirements discussed in section III of this preamble. The technical corrections are cost neutral.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs

This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory action. This final rule provides meaningful burden reduction by providing additional regulatory flexibilities.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart KKKKK) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0513. This action does not change the information collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This final rule will not impose any additional requirements on small entities, only alternatives to existing requirements. We have, therefore, concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The final amendments impose no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in the docket. (See EJ Screening Report for Clay Ceramics, Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0290-0241.)

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

• Environmental protection
• Administrative practices and procedures
• Air pollution control
• Hazardous substances
• Intergovernmental relations
• Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 63 is amended as follows:

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart KKKKK—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

2. Section 63.8595 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c);

b. Redesignating paragraph (h) as paragraph (i);

c. Adding a new paragraph (h); and

d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (i) introductory text and (i)(1) introductory text.

The revisions and addition read as follows:

3. Section 63.8620 is amended by:

a. Redesignating paragraphs (e) introductory text and (e)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (e)(1) introductory text and (e)(1)(i) through (iii), respectively;

b. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (e)(1) introductory text; and

c. Adding new paragraph (e)(2) and paragraphs (f) and (g).

The revision and additions read as follows:

4. Section 63.8630 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(4) to read as follows:

5. Section 63.8635 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(4)(iii)(C);

b. Adding paragraph (c)(9); and

c. Revising paragraph (g)(1).

The revisions and addition read as follows:

6. Section 63.8640 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and adding paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows:

7. Section 63.8665 is amended by adding definitions for “Cooling stack,” “Emissions averaging sources,” and “Products of combustion (POC) stack” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

8. Table 1 to subpart KKKKK is revised to read as follows:

9. Table 2 to subpart KKKKK is revised to read as follows:

10. Table 4 to subpart KKKKK is revised to read as follows:

Note 1: The standard deviation of the 12 1-hour temperature measurements is calculated as follows:

Where:

σ = standard deviation

x_i = each 1-hour temperature measurement

μ = mean of all 12 1-hour measurements

N = 12 measurements

11. Table 6 to subpart KKKKK is revised to read as follows:

12. Table 7 to subpart KKKKK is revised to read as follows: