National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review, 57738-57770 [2024-14692]

Download as PDF 57738 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015; FRL–5948.1– 03–OAR] RIN 2060–AV59 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This action finalizes our amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP). Specifically, we are finalizing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F). DATES: This final rule is effective on September 16, 2024. The incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 16, 2024. ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015. 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 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 at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 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. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: For questions about this final action, contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Brian Storey, Mail Drop: D243–04, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 (919) 541–1103; and email address: storey.brian@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 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: CAA Clean Air Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations DB dead burned dolomitic lime D/F dioxin/furans DL dolomitic lime DSI dry sorbent injection EJ environmental justice EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESP electrostatic precipitator FF fabric filter FR Federal Register g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) HBEL health-based emission limit HCl hydrogen chloride IQV intra-quarry variability lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced at the kiln lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone feed MACT maximum achievable control technology NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OMB Office of Management and Budget PM particulate matter ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry PR preheater rotary kiln PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PSH process stone handling QL quick lime RDL representative detection level RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RTR residual risk and technology review SR straight rotary kiln SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction TEF toxicity equivalence factors THC total hydrocarbons tpy tons of pollutant per year UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act UPL upper predictive limit VK vertical kiln VCS voluntary consensus standards Background information. On January 5, 2023 (88 FR 805), the EPA proposed revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to complete the technology review, originally promulgated on July 24, 2020 (85 FR 44960), by finalizing emission standards for 4 unregulated HAP. Based on the information available to EPA in 2023 at the time of the proposal, the EPA certified the rule as not having a significant economic PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 impact on a substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE). Following the publication of the NPRM, EPA received additional data and feedback via public comments regarding the Agency’s economic analysis, including information on the impacts to businesses that would be affected by the proposed rule. Our initial review of this updated information indicated that estimates of the control costs developed to support the proposal may have been understated and that there could accordingly be significant economic impacts to small businesses. On February 9, 2024 (89 FR 9088), the EPA published a supplemental proposal to address information received from public commenters and other sources of information, including the small business review panel. The supplemental proposal addressed regulatory flexibilities raised during outreach to the small businesses impacted by proposed revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions to the rule based on the public comments received regarding both the January 5, 2023, proposed rule and the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. We summarize some of the more significant comments we received regarding the proposed and supplemental rule amendments and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other public comments and the EPA’s responses to those comments is available in the document titled ‘‘Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments’’, included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015). Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows: 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 is the lime manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source category in our January 5, 2023, and February 9, 2024, proposals? D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023, proposal? E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Lime Manufacturing source category? A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards B. Mercury Emission Standards C. Organic HAP Emission Standards D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? F. Severability of Standards G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted A. What are the affected facilities? B. What are the air quality impacts? C. What are the cost impacts? D. What are the economic impacts? E. What are the benefits? F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 57739 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble. TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION NAICS code 1 Source category and NESHAP Lime Manufacturing .................................................................................. 1 North Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by the final action for the source category listed. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble. 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 will also be 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-airpollution/lime-manufacturing-plantsnational-emission-standards-hazardous. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same website. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 32741, 33111, 3314, 327125 American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by September 16, 2024. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this final rule may not be VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 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(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. II. Background A. What is the statutory authority for this action? For major sources, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(2) provides that PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental impacts. These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT standards, known as the MACT ‘‘floor.’’ The EPA must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor, commonly referred to as ‘‘beyond-the-floor’’ (BTF) standards. Costs may not be considered when setting the MACT floor and may only be considered when determining whether BTF standards are appropriate. The EPA considered BTF standards but did not elect to set BTF standards in this rulemaking. On January 5, 2023, the EPA proposed amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to address unregulated emissions of HAP from the Lime Manufacturing source category. On February 9, 2024, the EPA supplemented its proposed amendments based on information received from commenters and other sources of information, including the small business review panel. In this document, the EPA proposed revisions to the proposed MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F for the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA is finalizing these amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all emissions of E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57740 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations HAP from sources in the source category are regulated. In setting standards for major source categories under CAA section 112(d), the EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA section 112(b).1 In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA decision issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required by CAA section 112(d)(6).2 These amendments address currently unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime manufacturing source category. B. What is the Lime Manufacturing source category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category? khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5, 2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by calcination. The source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 34 facilities. As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major sources. A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. The NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes as the feedstock. In addition, lime manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Lime manufacturing operations at pulp and paper mills are subject to the NESHAP for combustion sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills.3 Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants are not subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP because beet sugar lime kiln 1 Desert Citizens against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (‘‘[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of 40 CFR 112(d) to require the regulation of all HAPs listed in 40 CFR 112(b)(1)’’), citing Nat’l Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633–34 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 2 Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020). 3 66 FR 3180, January 12, 2001. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 exhaust is typically routed through a series of gas washers to clean the exhaust gas prior to process use. Other lime manufacturing plants that are part of multiple operations, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source as each lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. The NESHAP also established opacity limits for kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF) and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers. Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for HAP metals. The PM emission limit for existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution control systems (e.g., dry scrubbers, fabric filters, baghouses) prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb/ tsf. Kilns which meet the criteria for the 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must continue to use a wet scrubber for PM emission control in order to be eligible to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at any time such a kiln switches to a dry control, it would become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf emission limit, regardless of the type of control device used in the future. The PM emission limit for all new kilns and lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As a compliance option, these emission limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf limit) may be averaged across kilns and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 emissions limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission level of 0.10 lb/tsf. Existing kilns that have installed and are operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, and that are required to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually, and they may not be included in any averaging calculations. Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack are subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/dscm limit but are not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH operations are subject to a 10 percent opacity limit. For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the building’s vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP does not allow averaging of PSH operations. The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology review (RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) found that the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health, that more stringent standards were not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect, and that there were no developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that would warrant revisions to the standards. In addition, the 2020 RTR addressed periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM operations. Lastly, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring electronic reporting. C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source category in our February 9, 2024, proposal? On February 9, 2024, the EPA published a supplemental proposal in the Federal Register for the Lime E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, in which the EPA proposed setting MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Table 2 includes a summary of the 57741 MACT standards in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR THE LIME MANUFACTURING NESHAP INCLUDED IN THE FEBRUARY 9, 2024, SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSAL Pollutant Kiln type 1 Lime produced 2 Hydrogen Chloride ......... SR ................................. SR ................................. PR ................................. PR ................................. VK .................................. VK .................................. All .................................. All .................................. All .................................. QL .................................. DL, DB ........................... QL .................................. DL, DB ........................... QL .................................. DL, DB ........................... All .................................. All .................................. All .................................. Mercury .......................... Organic HAP 3 ................ Dioxin/Furan ................... 1 Straight New source limit Existing source limit 0.015 1.7 0.096 0.39 0.021 0.39 27 1.7 0.037 Unit of measure 0.52 2.3 0.096 0.39 0.021 0.39 34 1.7 0.037 lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/MMton lime produced. ppmvd at 7 percent O2. ng/dscm (TEQ) at 7 percent O2. rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). HAP include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. 2 Dolomitic 3 Organic khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023, proposal? The EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that could be subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP requirements. On August 3, 2023, the EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened the Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division within the EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). Prior to convening the Panel, the EPA conducted outreach and solicited comments from the SERs. After the Panel was convened, the Panel provided additional information to the SERs and requested their input. The Panel’s review identified several significant alternatives for consideration by the Administrator of the EPA which would accomplish the stated objectives of the CAA and would minimize economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an intra-quarry variability (IQV) for mercury, an aggregated organic HAP emission standard, retaining subcategorization for HCl numeric emissions limits, and work practice standards for D/F in place of a numeric limit. The EPA is including some of these flexibilities as a part of this final rule, including subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor for mercury, and an aggregated organic VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 HAP emission limit. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report is available in the docket of this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for the Lime Manufacturing source category? The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F within the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, we are finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the HCl and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each pollutant across existing kilns located at the same facility. This section provides a description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary of key comments and responses, and the EPA’s rationale for the final decisions and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment summaries and the EPA’s responses can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards 1. What comments did we receive on the hydrogen chloride emission standards, and what are our responses? The following key comments were received regarding the HCl emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 included. All comments regarding HCl not discussed in this section, and the EPA’s responses can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: While the EPA received comments in support of the subcategorization of HCl emission standards by kiln type and lime produced, the EPA also received opposing comments which state that the proposed subcategories by lime produced for HCl are unlawful because they are not based on differences in the class, type, or size of lime kilns. Commenter stated that the CAA section 112(d)(1) allows the EPA only to distinguish between ‘‘classes, types, and sizes’’ of sources in setting emission standards for a category. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA determined that subcategorization by lime produced was warranted because the characteristics of DL and QL are different, where DL is made from naturally occurring limestone with a higher percentage of magnesium chloride, and QL has a lower chloride content. Given that HCl emissions from a lime manufacturing process are primarily driven by the heating of raw materials being processed in the lime kiln, the EPA finds that these differences in chloride content of the limestone being fed to a kiln as raw material warrant subcategorization. For these reasons the EPA has decided it is warranted to set subcategorizations by the type of lime produced (e.g., DL, QL). Comment: In the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, the EPA asked for public comment on the use of a health-based emission limit (HBEL), under CAA section 112(d)(4), when E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57742 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations determining the appropriate emission standards for HCl. The EPA received comments on the supplemental proposal both supporting setting an HBEL and against setting an HBEL for HCl. Commenters supporting an HBEL for HCl agreed with the EPA’s assertion that HCl is a ‘‘threshold pollutant’’ and stated that current levels of HCl emissions from lime kilns are well below the threshold levels of concern for human receptors. In support, commenters supporting the use of an HBEL cited the 2020 RTR, where the EPA found that the risks of lime manufacturing under the current MACT standards were acceptable and that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Commenters opposed to the use of an HBEL for HCl stated that the EPA had not provided substantial evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic. Therefore, they stated, HCl cannot be a threshold pollutant, and the EPA cannot establish an HBEL for HCl. Response: The EPA acknowledges comments received on whether it is appropriate to consider HCl a threshold pollutant as defined under the CAA section 112(d)(4). The EPA is mindful that, in Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, 895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the court determined that the rulemaking record did not show that HCl is not a carcinogen. 895 F.3d at 11. Based on the science and methods developed over the last 33 years, we believe the issue in setting a standard under CAA section 112(d)(4) is not necessarily whether HCl is a carcinogen but rather whether HCl has a threshold with an ample margin of safety. Thus, in the supplemental proposal, we stated that a chemical’s mechanism of action (e.g., mutagenic, or non-mutagenic) is an important consideration when determining if a pollutant has a threshold. The EPA agrees with commenters’ assertions 4 that we cannot claim that mutagenicity is the sole test to determine whether a pollutant has a threshold, for cancer or other adverse health effects. We acknowledge industry comments in support of an HBEL and that current HCl emissions based upon the 2020 RTR are at levels that were acceptable with an ample margin of safety. However, considering the other comments received, we have decided not to promulgate an HBEL for HCl. 2. What did we propose and what are the final hydrogen chloride emission standards in this final rule? Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR indicated the presence of HCl, using EPA Methods 320 and 321. Additionally, the EPA evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which data was available. From our discussions with industry representatives, and our review of the HCl emissions data, we found that the configuration of the different types of kilns warranted subcategorization by kiln configuration. In the final rule amendments, we have subcategorized the HCl MACT standards by the following kiln types: straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), and vertical kiln (VK). In addition, due to the different residence times of the raw materials within the heating zone of the kiln during the production of lime, the 3 types of lime produced also warranted subcategorization by lime type. We have also subcategorized the HCl MACT standards by the following types of lime produced: dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), and dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the HCl MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent upper predictive limit (UPL). In some instances, subcategorization resulted in limited datasets, and a single dataset was used to calculate both existing and new source HCl MACT floor limits. In these instances, the existing source HCl MACT floor limit is the same as the new source HCl MACT floor limit. The HCl MACT floor limits were calculated based on units of pounds of pollutant per ton of lime produced (lb/ton lime produced). Table 3 summarizes the new and existing source emission limits for HCl in the final amendments to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FINAL NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE Kiln type 1 SR SR PR PR VK VK ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... ........................................................................... 1 Straight New source limit (lb/ton lime produced) Lime produced 2 QL ........................................................................... DL, DB .................................................................... QL ........................................................................... DL, DB .................................................................... QL ........................................................................... DL, DB .................................................................... 0.015 1.7 0.096 0.39 0.021 0.39 Existing source limit (lb/ton lime produced) 0.52 2.3 0.096 0.39 0.021 0.39 rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). 2 Dolomitic The following key comments were received regarding the mercury emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments regarding mercury not discussed in this section, and the EPA’s responses can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: Commenters supported the use of an intra-quarry variability factor (IQV) for mercury but commented that the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal should be adjusted to allow sources more flexibility in meeting the mercury standards. In a separate comment, a commenter suggested that the EPA should collect additional data to support variability in the quarry data. Response: The final rule includes an IQV factor based on our statistical analysis of the quarry data provided by 4 Refer to document titled ‘‘Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments’’, section 2, comment 1, which is available in the docket for this action. B. Mercury Emission Standards khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 1. What comments did we receive on the mercury emission standards, and what are our responses? VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations National Lime Association (NLA) for the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont Eden lime manufacturing facilities. Case law on the use of an IQV factor in a rule requires the EPA to only consider quarry data representing the facilities that are in the MACT floor pool (‘‘best performers’’). The MACT floor pool in the lime source category consisted of two facilities: the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont Eden lime manufacturing facilities. The quarry data from these 2 facilities were used to calculate the IQV factor in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. No other quarry data were provided for the Carmeuse Maysville or Graymont Eden facilities during the public comment period, and, therefore, the quarry data of the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont Eden facilities used to propose the IQV factor in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal was also used to set the IQV factor in this final rule. 2. What did we propose and what are the final mercury emission standards in this final rule? Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR based on EPA Methods 29 and 30B indicated the presence of mercury in emissions from lime manufacturing facilities. In the February 9, 2024, proposal the EPA evaluated the use of an intra-quarry variability (IQV) factor to be applied in the mercury UPL calculations to account for the naturally occurring variability in mercury content of the raw materials. Consistent with the approach followed in the Portland Cement Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and the Brick and Structural Clay Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ, the IQV factor accounts for this variability in the mercury content of the raw material over geological time. For the reasons explained in the supplemental proposal, we are using an IQV factor in calculating the final mercury MACT standards. As part of the evaluation of a mercury standard with the inclusion of an IQV factor, the EPA reevaluated whether a separate subcategory was necessary for kilns producing DB, as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposed amendments. To do this, we first developed standards based on no subcategorization and the application of an IQV factor. The result of this analysis was 27 lb Hg/MMton for new sources and 34 lb Hg/MMton for existing sources. The EPA determined, based on the available test data, that kilns producing DB would be able to comply with the existing source standard after the application of air pollution controls. This determination differs from the evaluation the EPA performed when setting subcategories 57743 for HCl, where the chloride content of the raw materials indicated significant differences in the HCl emissions from the lime kilns. For consideration of mercury subcategories, after the application of an IQV factor, the new and existing mercury emission limits for kilns producing DL and QL were found to be similar to the emission limits for kilns producing DB lime, and therefore no subcategorization was determined to be needed due to these negligible differences in emissions between the types of lime produced. No additional data were provided during the supplemental proposal that would suggest or warrant setting subcategories for mercury. Therefore, we determined in this final action to not create subcategories based on stone produced in setting mercury emission limits. To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the mercury MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The mercury MACT floor limits were calculated in units of pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced (lb/MMton lime produced). The final mercury emission limits for new and existing sources, including the IQV factor and without subcategories, are included in table 4. TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF FINAL NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR MERCURY Lime produced All ............................................................................ All ........................................................................... C. Organic HAP Emission Standards 1. What comments did we receive on the organic HAP emission standards, and what are our responses? khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES New source limit (lb/MMton lime produced) Kiln type The following key comments were received regarding the THC and organic HAP emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, respectively. The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments not discussed in this section, and the EPA’s responses, can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: Commenters stated that the measured detection levels (MDL) used to calculate the aggregate organic HAP VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 limit of the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal should be summed on the same basis of moisture and oxygen. Commenters stated that the detection limit values do not appear to contain a correction for moisture, which can cause a significant difference in the final result. Similarly, as the final results are all to be corrected to a 7 percent oxygen concentration, an average oxygen concentration adjustment should also be made to the MDL values used for the floor calculation. Commenters argue that as this total result may contain some mix of detected and non-detected compounds, the MDL used for this standard setting should include this adjustment criteria. Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the representative detection level (RDL) for the EPA Method 320 results should be adjusted to dry (EPA Method 18 results are PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Existing source limit (lb/MMton lime produced) 27 34 already dry), and that the final organic HAP RDL should be corrected to 7 percent oxygen prior to comparing to the UPL. We have revised the memo and the RDL accordingly as well as correcting the emission limits for the new value. 2. What did we propose and what are the final organic HAP emission standards in this final rule? The 2020 RTR emissions data included the results of testing 34 kiln exhaust stacks for the presence of total hydrocabons (THC) using EPA Method 25A. In addition, industry stakeholders provided emissions testing data that identified specific non-dioxin organic HAP. Based on an assessment of the available test data, the EPA identified 8 specific pollutants that were consistently emitted by the Lime Manufacturing source category. These include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57744 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. The EPA determined from the 2020 RTR emissions data that the emissions of these 8 pollutants were consistently being emitted by the source category. Although the data suggested that other organic HAP were being emitted, the data indicated that the 8 pollutants were consistently being emitted by all sources for which we had data. Furthermore, the EPA determined that controlling the emissions of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility would also control the facility’s emissions of these other organic HAP. For these reasons, the EPA is finalizing the use of an aggregated emission limit for the 8 organic HAP identified in the data analysis as a surrogate for total organic HAP, which by controlling the emissions of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility emission source (i.e., lime kiln) a facility will also control the facility’s emissions of any other organic HAP from the same source. Refer to the memorandum ‘‘Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry,’’ which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). For each of the 8 organic HAP, the EPA calculated the emission limit value equivalent to 3 times the representative detection level (3xRDL) of the test method. The total of these was then compared to UPL calculations for the 8 pollutants. The new and existing UPLs were calculated based on a ranking of the average emission rates for the 8 organic HAP. In all cases for both new and existing sources, the 3xRDL value, which represents the lowest value that can be accurately measured, was above the calculated UPL. We are accordingly finalizing the MACT floor at this level. The new and existing source organic HAP MACT floor limits are summarized in table 5. TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF FINAL NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR ORGANIC HAP Kiln type Lime roduced All ............................................................................ All ........................................................................... New source limit 1 (ppmvd at 7 percent O2) Existing source limit 1 (ppmvd at 7 percent O2) 2.6 2.6 1 New and existing source organic HAP emission limit defined as the sum of 8 organic HAP identified as: formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 1. What comments did we receive on the dioxin/furan emission standards, and what are our responses? The following key comments were received regarding the D/F emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments regarding D/ F not discussed in this section, and the EPA’s responses, can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: Commenters indicated that in the absence of adequate data to set a numeric standard, the D.C. Circuit has upheld the EPA’s promulgation of a non-numeric work practice standard. Chesapeake Climate Action Network v. EPA, 952 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2020). Commenters stated that the EPA repeatedly and consistently informed them that the Agency was planning to issue a work practice for D/F because the D/F data showed that more than 55 percent of test results were non-detect. Commenters stated that they had multiple conversations with the EPA on the form a work practice could take, and that they submitted a suggested work practice (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0015–0090). Commenters VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 reiterated that due to extremely low D/ F emissions, an appropriate work practice would require sources to properly operate the air pollution control devices already in place to control particulate matter. Response: As described in the memorandum ‘‘Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry,’’ which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0015), half of the available test data was greater than the minimum detection limit, as determined according to the June 5, 2014, memorandum titled ‘‘Determination of ‘non-detect’ from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors versus establishing work practice standards’’ (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015–0117) (Johnson 2014). Further, the EPA had in its possession data showing that at least one kiln emitted D/F at a level above 3xRDL. These facts demonstrates that the requirements to promulgate work practice standard (i.e., that it is infeasible to measure emissions) has not been met. In accordance with CAA section 112(h), a work practice must be consistent with the requirements of setting emission standards detailed in section 112(d) of the CAA, (i.e., it represents the average emissions performance for 12 percent of the best performing sources for existing sources, PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 or the best performing source for new sources). No data was provided by the commenter’s referenced material of a work practice which showed it represented the performance of the best performing sources; therefore, the EPA cannot determine if a work practice would be consistent with the requirements of section 112(d). As a general matter, lime production and kiln operations are not typical combustion sources where the majority of emissions are generated by the raw materials being heated in the kiln and for these reasons, the EPA did not set an alternative work practice standard in the final rule. 2. What did we propose and what are the final dioxin/furan emission standards in this final rule? The 2020 RTR emissions data indicated the presence of D/F using EPA Method 23. The EPA followed the guidance of the Johnson 2014 memorandum (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015–0117), in using detection limits as an indicator of the measurable presence of a given pollutant, specifically where multicomponent samples, such as with D/F congeners, are the pollutants of concern. Additionally, the EPA used the procedures laid out in the December 13, 2011, memorandum titled ‘‘Data and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits’’ (Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2017–0015–0119). Similar to E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations organic HAP, and in accordance with these guidance documents, the new and existing UPL for D/F were compared to the emission limit value determined to be equivalent to 3xRDL of the test method, and the 3xRDL value was found to be greater than the UPL. Therefore, the MACT floor limit for D/ 57745 F was set based on the 3xRDL value of the test method. The D/F MACT floor limits for new and existing sources are summarized in table 6. TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF FINAL NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR DIOXIN/FURANS New source limit Kiln type Lime produced All ..................................... All .................................... E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP? 1. What comments did we receive on the January 5, 2023, proposed rule and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, and what are our responses? The following key comments were received regarding other changes proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments not discussed in this section, and the EPA’s responses, see the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action. Comment: Commenters state that the EPA should allow for emissions averaging for organic HAP and for D/F. The commenters also suggest emissions averaging between subcategories, and between new and existing sources. Lastly, commenters stated that the requirement to submit an emission averaging plan for approval is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the suggested revisions Existing source limit Unit of measure 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ) @7 percent O2. to the proposed emissions averaging compliance option would be appropriate. The EPA has generally imposed limits on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs to assure that such programs achieve at least equivalent reductions in emissions as the primary standards. These limits include: (1) no averaging between different pollutants; (2) no averaging between sources that are not part of the same affected facility; (3) no averaging between individual sources within a single major source if the individual sources are not subject to the same NESHAP; and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources. The emissions averaging allowed under the emissions averaging compliance option in this final action fully satisfies each of these criteria. The EPA has included emissions averaging provisions for single kilns producing multiple types of lime as product. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the emissions averaging should include organic HAP and D/F. The organic HAP and D/F emission limits include multiple pollutants and congeners, and facilities will emit various combinations of these groups of pollutants. We find that emissions averaging is not appropriate for these groupings of pollutants in this source 0.037 Unit of measure ng/dscm (TEQ) @7 percent O2. category. Consistent with emissions averaging programs in other source categories, the EPA is finalizing the emissions averaging compliance option as proposed, with restrictions against averaging between new and existing sources, or between subcategories. Although the requirement to submit an emissions averaging plan for approval is being finalized as proposed, the EPA has adjusted the deadline for submitting the emissions averaging plan from 180 days to 60 days before the compliance demonstration making the emissions averaging plan less burdensome. 2. What changes are included in this final rule? We are finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the HCl and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each pollutant across existing kilns located at the same facility. Under these emissions averaging compliance alternative, a facility with more than one existing kiln may average emissions across the kilns located at the facility provided that the overall average emissions from the kilns demonstrating compliance under this provision do not exceed the limits included in table 7. TABLE 7—EMISSIONS AVERAGING COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE FOR HCL AND MERCURY Kiln type 1 Lime produced 2 Hydrogen Chloride .................................. SR .......................... SR .......................... PR .......................... PR .......................... VK .......................... VK .......................... All ........................... DL, DB .................... QL ........................... DL, DB .................... QL ........................... DL, DB .................... QL ........................... All ........................... Mercury ................................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Emissions averaging alternative limit Pollutant 1 Straight 2.1 0.47 0.36 0.087 0.36 0.019 31 Unit of measure lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/ton lime produced. lb/MMton lime produced. rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). 2 Dolomitic The emission limits included in table 7 reflect a 10 percent adjustment factor to the MACT floor standard. We expect that these emission limits would result VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 in reductions of HCL and mercury greater than those achieved by application of the MACT floor on a unitby-unit basis. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 The emissions averaging program has restrictions. First, emissions averaging is not allowed between different pollutants. Second, emissions averaging E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57746 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations is only permissible among individual existing affected units at a single lime manufacturing plant. Third, emissions averaging is only permitted among kilns in the same subcategory. Lastly, new affected sources cannot use emissions averaging for compliance purposes. We are finalizing a requirement for each facility intending to use this emissions averaging program to develop an emissions averaging plan that identifies: (1) all units in the averaging group; (2) the control technology installed; (3) the process parameter(s) that will be monitored; (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention measure to be used; (5) the test plan for measuring the HAP being averaged; and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for each control device. F. Severability of Standards This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2)–(3). We intend each separate portion of this rule to operate independently of and to be severable from the rest of the rule. Each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific determinations that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of the rule. The EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA 112(d)(2)–(3) MACT standards, including monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements, is independent. Thus, each aspect of the EPA’s overall approach to this source category could be implemented even in the absence of any one or more of the other elements included in this final rule. Accordingly, the EPA finds that each set of standards in this final rule is severable from and can operate independently of each other set of standards. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards? The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this action are effective on July 16, 2024. The compliance date for existing sources is July 16, 2027. New sources must comply with all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 16, 2024, or upon startup, whichever is later. IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional Analyses Conducted The following analyses of costs and benefits, and environmental, economic, and environmental justice impacts are presented for the purpose of providing the public with an understanding of the potential consequences of this final VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 action. The EPA’s obligation to conduct an analysis of the potential costs and benefits under Executive Order 12866 is distinct from its obligation in setting standards under CAA section 112 to take costs into account. A. What are the affected facilities? Currently, 34 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP are operating in the United States. An affected source under the NESHAP is a lime manufacturing plant that is a major source, or that is located at, or is a part of, a major source of HAP emissions, unless the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes. A lime manufacturing plant is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells, or other calcareous substances. A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons or more, or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site. The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP applies to each existing or new lime kiln and their associated cooler(s). In addition, the NESHAP applies to each PSH operation located at the plant. This includes storage bins, conveying systems and transfer points, bulk loading and unloading operations, screening operations, surge bins, and bucket elevators. B. What are the air quality impacts? This action finalizes standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F that will limit emissions and require, in some cases, the installation of additional controls at lime manufacturing plants at major sources. Compliance with the emission standards set in this final rule will result in a combined reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of HAP per year. Specifically, the emission standards of this action will reduce HCl emissions by 884 tons per year (tpy). The emission standards of this action will reduce mercury emissions by 457 lbs per year (0.23 tpy). The emission standards of this action will reduce organic HAP emissions by 8 tpy. Finally, the emission standards of this action will reduce D/F emissions by 9.5 × 10¥5 lbs per year (4.7 × 10¥8 tpy). Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would result PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of criteria pollutants from power plants). These secondary impacts typically include the energy needed to power the control devices, solid waste and wastewater generated from operation of the control devices, and air emissions that result from the generation of electricity used to operate the control devices. Secondary emissions typically include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). However, the extent of the increase in these pollutants is highly dependent on the type of fuel used in the EGUs. The EPA does not have any information that suggests that facilities in the lime manufacturing source category generate their own electricity and did not receive any new information about the source of electricity for these facilities from the request for comments in the supplemental proposal. Refer to the ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ in the docket for a detailed discussion of the analyses performed on potential secondary impacts and estimates of the total energy, solid waste, and wastewater impacts associated with the estimated controls required for compliance with the final standards (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 0015). C. What are the cost impacts? This action finalizes emission limits for new and existing sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category. Although the action contains requirements for new sources and we requested comment on new construction or plans for expanding facilities/operations; we are not aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and, consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new sources. We lack the data and modeling necessary to predict changes in the demand for lime manufacturing facilities due to other rulemakings or funded construction projects from the Inflation Reduction Act or Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We estimate the total capital investment for existing sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category to be $485,000,000 and the total annualized cost of the final rule to be $166,000,000 per year. The annual costs E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES are expected to be based on operation and maintenance of the added control systems. A memorandum titled ‘‘Final Cost Impacts for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry’’ includes details of our cost assessment and is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). D. What are the economic impacts? For this action, the EPA estimated the cost of installing additional air pollution control devices in order to comply with the February 9, 2024, proposed emission limits. This includes both the capital costs of the initial installation and subsequent operation and maintenance costs. The EPA lacks the information necessary to independently assess the downtime loss of production due to capital improvements or deferred maintenance that would be associated with these controls for each affected facility. The assumed equipment life of the recommended controls for this NESHAP is twenty years. This default equipment life is based on information in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. To assess the potential economic impacts, the expected annual cost was compared to the total sales revenue for the ultimate owners of affected facilities. For this rule, the expected annual cost is $4,900,0000 (on average) for each facility, with an estimated nationwide annual cost of $166,000,000 per year in perpetuity. The 34 affected facilities are owned by 11 parent companies, and the total costs associated with the final amendments to the rule are expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate owner. Because the total costs associated with the proposed amendments are expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales revenue per owner in the Lime Manufacturing source category, there are economic impacts from these proposed amendments on the 3 affected facilities that are owned by 2 small entities. Refer to section IV.C. of this preamble for a detailed description of the small business outreach and regulatory flexibility analysis performed in conjunction with this rule. The EPA predicts that the affected sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category will be able to pass on some of their compliance costs to their customers. International trade of lime products is limited and there are no readily available cost-competitive substitutes for lime. The economic analysis indicates that, under the final amendments on an annual basis, domestic lime production is estimated to decline by 212,000 VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 metric tons (1.4 percent), imports are estimated to increase by 37,000 metric tons (11.5 percent), and exports are estimated to decline by 22,000 metric tons (6.6 percent), resulting in an estimated net decline in the quantity of lime distributed to the domestic market by about 164,000 metric tons (1.0 percent). While the compliance costs are expected to have effects on the lime market, the impact estimates suggest that affected sources are not likely to face severe competition from foreign lime producers or from substitutes for their product. The magnitude of the impact estimates do not suggest that the compliance costs are likely to induce any changes to the market structure for lime through changes such as diversification or consolidation. Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category is available in the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). E. What are the benefits? The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission reductions of HAP associated with this final action. The EPA currently does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with HAP reductions, and risk reductions for this rulemaking. However, we estimate that the final rule amendments would reduce emissions by 893 tons per year and thus lower risk of serious adverse health effects (such as cancer and neurodevelopmental toxicity) in communities near lime manufacturing plants. These unquantified benefits would be particularly impactful to pregnant women, infants and children in these communities, since these life stages are especially susceptible to exposures to chemicals such as carcinogens and neurodevelopmental toxicants. It is reasonable to expect that the emissions reductions from this rule would reduce the incidence of adverse effects among the exposed populations. Monetization of the benefits of reductions in cancer incidences requires several important inputs, including central estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and nonfatal). We expect these emissions reductions to have beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions from PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 57747 lime manufacturing facilities. Due to methodology and data limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP in this analysis. We have determined that quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this final rule. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with reductions in HAP emitted from sources subject to control under the final action. Information on our qualitative discussion of the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources in the Lime Manufacturing source category is available in the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct? For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 2016 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’ which provides recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The technical guidance states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) Create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns through this action under development. The EPA’s EJ technical guidance states that ‘‘[t]he analysis of potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address 3 questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under consideration, are potential EJ concerns E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57748 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations created or mitigated compared to the baseline?’’ 5 The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory factors the EPA is required to consider under those sections. To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated with lime manufacturing facilities, we performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km (∼3.1 miles) and 50 km (∼31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. In this preamble, we focus on the proximity results for the populations living within 5 km (∼3.1 miles) of the facilities. The results of this proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in the technical document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, which is available in the docket for this action. The results (see table 8) show that for populations within 5 km of the 34 lime manufacturing facilities, the following demographic groups were above the national average: Hispanic/Latino (37 percent versus 19 percent nationally), linguistically isolated households (21 percent versus 5 percent nationally), people living below the poverty level (27 percent versus 13 percent nationally), and people without a high school diploma (17 percent versus 12 percent nationally). A summary of the proximity demographic assessment performed for the major source lime manufacturing facilities is included as table 8. The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented in the report Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, available in this docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). TABLE 8—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MAJOR SOURCE LIME MANUFACTURING FACILITIES Population within 5 km of facilities Demographic group Nationwide Total Population .................................................................................................................. 328,016,242 ..................... 473,343 60 percent ........................ 12 percent ........................ 0.7 percent ....................... 19 percent ........................ 8 percent .......................... 50 percent. 9 percent. 0.9 percent. 37 percent. 3 percent. 13 percent ........................ 87 percent ........................ 27 percent. 73 percent. 12 percent ........................ 88 percent ........................ 17 percent. 83 percent. Race and Ethnicity by Percent White ................................................................................................................................... Black ................................................................................................................................... American Indian and Alaska Native ................................................................................... Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) .............................................................. Other and Multiracial ........................................................................................................... Income by Percent Below Poverty Level ........................................................................................................... Above Poverty Level ........................................................................................................... Education by Percent Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ..................................................................... Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .......................................................................... Linguistically Isolated by Percent Linguistically Isolated .......................................................................................................... 5 percent .......................... 21 percent. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Notes: • Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. • Minority population is the total population minus the white population. • To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, Black, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census. The human health risk estimated for this source category for the July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and the standards were determined to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk was 1in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in- 1 million for allowable emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were well below 1 (0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions). The noncancer hazard quotient for acute exposure was 0.6, also below 1. The final revisions to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will reduce emissions by 893 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve human health exposures for the populations and individuals most exposed to this pollution, including communities with environmental justice concerns. The proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air quality and public health for populations exposed to 5 ‘‘Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,’’ U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 3—Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https:// www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical- guidance-assessing-environmental-justiceregulatory-analysis. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations emissions from lime manufacturing facilities. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES G. What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct? In the July 24, 2020, final Lime Manufacturing NESHAP RTR (85 FR 44960), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined that risk from the Lime Manufacturing source category was acceptable, and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health. This action finalizes first-time emissions standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Specifically, compliance with the emission standards set in this final rule will result in a combined reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of HAP per year. This action’s health and risk assessments are protective of the most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we determine exposure and through the health benchmarks that we use. Specifically, the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of exposure, in which populations are conservatively presumed to be exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70year lifetime, including childhood. With regards to children’s potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the assessments rely on the EPA’s (or comparable) hazard identification and dose-response values that have been developed to be protective for all subgroups of the general population, including children. For example, mercury exposure is of particular importance to children, infants, and the developing fetus given the developmental neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. For more information on the risk assessment methods, see the risk report for the 2020 RTR rule, which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This final action is significant under E.O. 12866 Section 3(f)(1) as amended by E.O. 14094. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Documentation of any changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts associated with this action. This analysis is included in the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants’’ and is also available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.11. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes. Respondent’s obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA). Estimated number of respondents: 34. Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending on the burden item. Total estimated burden: 8,392 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Total estimated cost: $1,190,000 (per year), includes $335,000 annualized PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 57749 capital or operation & maintenance costs. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection activities contained in this final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are presented in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal (89 FR 9088). As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for review in the memorandum ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015) and is summarized here. 1. Statement of Need and Rule Objectives This industry is regulated by the EPA because pollutants emitted from lime manufacturing facilities are considered to cause or contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health. This action establishes standards for currently unregulated pollutants: hydrogen chloride, mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans. The decision in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) concluded that the EPA is required to address regulatory gaps (i.e., ‘‘gap-filling’’) when conducting NESHAP reviews. E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57750 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 2. Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and EPA Response While the EPA did not receive any comments specifically in response to the IRFA, we did receive comments from the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business Administration (SBA), and a summary of the major comments and our responses is provided in the next section. The issues raised by SBA were also reflected in comments from small businesses and organizations with small business interests. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments and EPA Response The SBA’s Office of Advocacy (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Advocacy’’) provided substantive comments on the January 5, 2023, Proposal and the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. Advocacy stated that while the amendments contain many positive recommendations from the 2023 SBAR panel conducted on EPA’s proposed changes to the NESHAP for lime manufacturing plants, they recommend additional refinements. In response to Advocacy’s comments, the EPA recognizes the impacts the emission standards will have on the industry and specifically to small businesses. The EPA has incorporated regulatory flexibilities into the final rule where warranted to address the impacts on small businesses in the source category. These flexibilities include subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor for mercury, and an aggregated organic HAP emission limit. The EPA has worked with the lime manufacturing industry, and with the small businesses within the source category, to ensure the emission standards being finalized are accurate and representative of lime manufacturing operations. We disagree with Advocacy about setting healthbased standards for HCl for reasons discussed in section III.A of this preamble. Additionally, we disagree with Advocacy that the EPA does not have enough information to set D/F emission standards, as discussed in section III.D of this preamble. More detailed responses to Advocacy’s comments can be found in the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments, available in the docket for this rulemaking. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 4. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule Applies For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as a small business in the lime manufacturing industry whose parent company has revenues or numbers of employees below the SBA Size Standards for the relevant NAICS code. A complete list of those NAICS codes and SBA Size Standards is available in section 6 of the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA estimates there are 34 affected facilities owned by 11 different parent companies. Two of the ultimate parent companies owning affected facilities are small entities. These small entities operate three facilities with a total of five kilns. They represent less than 5 percent of the total production capacity of the source category. 5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements of the Final Rule Under the rule requirements, small entities will be required to comply with the four emission standards in the final rule, which may require the use of one or more control devices new to the small entity. Small entities will also need to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards through the use of periodic performance testing and parametric monitoring. See section 6 of the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking, for more information on the characterization of the impacts under the rule. 6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic Impact to Small Entities a. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that potentially would be subject to the rule’s requirements. On July 21, 2023, the EPA’s Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened the Panel. In light of the SERs’ feedback and comments, the Panel considered the regulatory flexibility issues and elements of an IRFA specified by RFA/ PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act and developed the findings and discussion summarized in the SBAR Panel Report. The report was finalized on November 6, 2023, and transmitted to the EPA Administrator for consideration. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report is available in the rulemaking docket. b. Alternatives Considered The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an IQV for mercury, an aggregated organic HAP emission standard, retaining subcategorization for HCl numeric emissions limits, and work practice standards for D/F in a place of a numeric limit. The EPA included some of these flexibilities as a part of this final rule. As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, the EPA is not considering a health-based standard for HCl. The final rule does include an IQV factor for mercury and an aggregate organic HAP emission limit, as discussed in sections III.B and III.C of this preamble. However, as discussed in section III.D of this preamble, the EPA did not receive data supporting a work practice standard for D/F, and, therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a work practice standard for D/F in this action. In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide to help small entities comply with this rule. The Small Entity Compliance Guide will be available on the same date as the date of publication of the final rule or as soon as possible after that date and will be available on the rule web page at: https://www.epa.gov/stationarysources-air-pollution/limemanufacturing-plants-nationalemission-standards-hazardous. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action contains a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $183 million in 2023$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted for inflation using the gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price deflator) or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, for the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a written statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included in the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations OAR–2017–0015), and briefly summarized here. The EPA has concluded that this final rule may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include capital costs of purchasing and installing control technologies to meet the amended standards under the final rule. See section 6 of the document titled ‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking, for more information on the characterization of the economic impacts, including capital cost inputs, under the rule. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a disproportionate effect on children. For example, mercury exposure is of particular importance to children, infants, and the developing fetus given the developmental neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 increased minute ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the air emissions from lime manufacturing on children. The results of this evaluation are contained in the docket of this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2017–0015). This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed because this action finalizes emission standards for 4 previously unregulated pollutants; therefore, the rule includes health benefits to children by reducing the level of HAP emissions emitted from the lime manufacturing process. Furthermore, EPA’s Policy on Children’s Health also applies to this action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available under ‘‘What analysis of children’s environmental health did we conduct?’’ in this preamble. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is setting emission standards for 4 previously unregulated pollutants. This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR Part 51 This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA’s referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 57751 methods or scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when additional information is available for any particular VCS. Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test methods for this final rule. The VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 with certain conditions. Detailed information on the VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Technology Review’’, which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2017–0015). The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 (referenced in NESHAP subparts F and U) with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. This ASTM procedure uses an extractive sampling system that routes stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. We note that we proposed VCS ASTM D6348–12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320; however, since proposal, a newer version of the method (VCS ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020)) is now available, and we have determined it to be equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. The VCS ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020) method is an extractive FTIR Spectroscopy-based field test method and is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target compounds in emission streams from stationary sources. When using ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions must be met: (1) Annexes Al through A8 to ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020) are mandatory; and (2) in ASTM D6348–12 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 57752 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations (Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). For the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) × 100. The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784–16), ‘‘Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),’’ as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury concentrations ranging from approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784– 16 allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 2008). ASTM D6784–16 allows for the use of either an EPA Method 17 sampling configuration with a fixed (single) point where the flue gas is not stratified, or an EPA Method 5 sampling configuration with a multi-point traverse. These methods are available at ASTM International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See https://www.astm.org/. The standards are available to everyone at a cost determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available. Additionally, the EPA is incorporating by reference ‘‘Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2,3,7,8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds’’ (EPA/100/R– 10/005 December 2010), which is the source of the toxicity equivalence VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 factors (TEF) for dioxins and furans used in calculating the toxic equivalence quotient of the proposed dioxin and furan standard. This document describes the EPA’s updated approach for evaluating the human health risks from exposures to environmental media containing dioxinlike compounds. The EPA recommends that the TEF methodology, a component mixture method, be used to evaluate human health risks posed by these mixtures, using TCDD as the index chemical. The EPA recommends the use of the consensus TEF values for 2,3,7,8tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and dioxinlike compounds published in 2005 by the World Health Organization. This is the international method of expressing toxicity equivalents for dioxins/furans where a recommended TEF is multiplied by each individual compound’s (congener) emission concentration to calculate the 2,3,7,8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity equivalents (TEQ). To estimate risk associated with the mixture, the doseresponse function for the index chemical is evaluated at this sum, which is an estimate of the total index chemical equivalent dose for the mixture components being considered. The document is available on the EPA website, https://www.epa.gov/risk/ documents-recommended-toxicityequivalency-factors-human-health-riskassessments-dioxin-and. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s Commitment to Environmental Justice for All The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns. The assessment of populations in close proximity of lime manufacturing facilities shows Hispanic and linguistically isolated groups are higher than the national average (see section IV.F. of the preamble). The higher percentages are driven by 4 of the 34 facilities in the source category. The EPA anticipates this action is likely to reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. The EPA expects that the 4 facilities would have to implement control measures to reduce emissions to comply with the PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 MACT standards and that HAP exposures for the people living near these facilities (including those communities with EJ concerns) would decrease. The information supporting this Executive order review is contained in section IV.F of the preamble. K. 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 meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Michael S. Regan, Administrator. For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 A—General Provisions 2. Amend § 63.14 by revising paragraphs (i)(89) and (105) and (o)(1) to read as follows: ■ § 63.14 Incorporations by reference. * * * * * (i) * * * (89) ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved for §§ 63.109(a); 63.365(b); 63.509(a); 63.7322(d), (e), and (g); 63.7825(g) and (h); table 5 to subpart AAAAA. * * * * * (105) ASTM D6784–16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR approved for §§ 63.1450(d); 63.7322(c); table 5 to subpart UUUUU; appendix A E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations to subpart UUUUU; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; 63.9621. * * * * * (o) * * * (1) EPA/100/R–10/005, Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds, December 2010; IBR approved for §§ 63.1450(f); 63.1459; table 2 to subpart QQQ; table 1 to subpart AAAAA. (Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ 2013-09/documents/tefs-for-dioxin-epa00-r-10-005-final.pdf.) * * * * * Subpart AAAAA—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants 3. Amend § 63.7082 by: a. Revising paragraph (b); b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (j) as paragraphs (d) through (k); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (c); and ■ d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 63.7082 What part of my plant does this subpart cover? khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES * * * * * (b) For purposes of complying with the PM emissions limitations of this subpart, a new lime kiln is a lime kiln, and (if applicable) its associated lime cooler, for which construction or reconstruction began after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in § 63.7081 at the time you began construction or reconstruction. (c) For the purposes of complying with the HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations of this subpart, a new lime kiln is a lime kiln (only) for which construction or reconstruction began after January 5, 2023, if you met the applicability criteria in § 63.7081 at the time you began construction or reconstruction. * * * * * (f) An existing lime kiln is any lime kiln, and (when complying with PM emissions limitations) its associated lime cooler, that does not meet the definition of a new kiln of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section. * * * * * ■ 4. Amend § 63.7083 by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through (g); and ■ c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) and paragraph (h). VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? (a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. (1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004, you must comply with the PM emission limitations no later than January 5, 2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004, then you must comply with the PM emission limitations for new affected sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after startup, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. (b) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with the applicable PM emission limitations for the existing affected source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than January 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section. (c) If you start up your affected source after July 16, 2024, then you must comply with all emission limitations for new affected sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after startup, except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. (d) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with all applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than July 16, 2027, except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. * * * * * (h)(1) If your affected source commenced construction or reconstruction on or before January 5, 2023, then the compliance date for HCl, mercury, total organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations is July 16, 2027. (2) If your affected source commenced construction or reconstruction after July 16, 2024, then the compliance date for HCl, mercury, total organic HAP, and D/ F emissions limitations is July 16, 2024, or the date of initial startup, whichever is later. ■ 5. Amend § 63.7090 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 § 63.7090 meet? 57753 What emission limitations must I * * * * * (d) For those LMP using emissions averaging for either HCl emission limits or mercury emission limits in accordance with the procedures in § 63.7114(b) and (c), must not exceed the applicable emission limits in table 9 to this subpart. ■ 6. Amend § 63.7100 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? (a) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the applicable emission limitations (including operating limits) at all times. You may operate outside of the established operating parameter limit(s) during performance tests in order to establish new operating limits. * * * * * ■ 7. Amend § 63.7110 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: § 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? * * * * * (f) If your affected source commenced construction or reconstruction before July 16, 2024, you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitation in in this subpart no later than July 16, 2027, or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to §§ 63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 63.7114. ■ 8. Amend § 63.7112 by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (j)(1); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (n) and (o). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? * * * * * (b) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart. Beginning July 16, 2024, each performance test must include the methods specified in rows E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57754 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 19–24 of table 5 to this subpart. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted based on representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected source and under the specific conditions in table 5 to this subpart. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. Performance tests conducted in accordance with table 5 are not required to be performed at the same time. * * * * * (d) Except for opacity and VE observations, you must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at E= Where: E = Emission rate of mercury, pounds per thousand tons (lb/MMton) of lime produced or HCl pounds per ton (lb/ton) of lime produced. Ck = Concentration in the kiln effluent of mercury, micrograms/dry standard cubic feet (mg/dscf) or HCl, parts per million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd). (CkQk + CcQc) KP least 1 hour or as specified in table 5 to this subpart. * * * * * (j) * * * (1) Continuously record the parameter during the performance test and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test report. * * * * * (n) The emission rate of mercury and hydrogen chloride (HCl) from each lime kiln (and each lime cooler as applicable) must be computed for each run using equation 4 to this paragraph (n): Equation 4 to Paragraph (n) (Eq. 4) Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/ hr). Cc = Concentration in the cooler effluent of mercury, mg/dscf or HCl, ppmvd. This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscf/hr. This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. P = Lime production rate, tons per hour (ton/ hr). K = Conversion factor, for mercury, 4.4x108 micrograms per pound (mg/lb) for HCL 1.09x107 ppmvd HCl per lb/dscf HCl. (o) The concentration of total hydrocarbons and dioxins/furans shall be correct to 7 percent oxygen using equation 5 to this paragraph (o): Equation 5 to Paragraph (o) (Eq. 5) § 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES * * * * * (h) For each mass flow rate monitor used for measuring the dry sorbent injection rate (e.g., sorbent, activated carbon, etc.) you must meet the requirements of (h)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate. (2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with manufacturer’s procedures and specifications. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 (3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must be a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibrated reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, NIST traceable certified reference thermocouple, or alternate reference, subject to approval by the Administrator. (4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature sensors must be verified at least once every three months. ■ 10. Amend § 63.7114 by: ■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (d) and (e); and ■ b. Adding new paragraphs (b) and (c). The additions read as follows: § 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations standard? * * * * * (b) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, the average HCl or mercury emissions determined according to the procedures in § 63.7112(n), must not E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 ER16JY24.001</GPH> 9. Amend § 63.7113 by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows: ■ (3) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the manufacturer’s procedures and specifications. (i) For each temperature monitoring device installed to monitor the temperature of a thermal oxidizer, you must meet the requirements of (i)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) Install the temperature monitoring device in the fire box or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the fire box in a position before any substantial heat exchange occurs. (2) The temperature measurement system must be capable of measuring the temperature over a range that extends at least 20 percent beyond the normal expected operating range and has an accuracy of ±1 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) whichever is greater. The data recording system associated with affected CPMS must have a resolution that is equal to or better than one-half of the required system accuracy. ER16JY24.000</GPH> Where: C7% = concentration of total hydrocarbons ppmv as propane on a dry basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm corrected to 7 percent oxygen. Cunc = uncorrected total hydrocarbon concentration, ppmv as propane on a dry basis basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm. CO2 = concentration of oxygen (percent). Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations exceed the applicable emission limit in table 9 to this subpart. (c) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section. (1) You must complete the stack testing required in paragraph § 63.7112(n) for all lime kilns you wish to include in the emission average before submitting the implementation plan required in paragraph (c)(2) of this section. (2) You must develop and submit to the applicable regulatory authority for review and approval, an implementation plan for emission averaging no later than 180 days before the date you intend to demonstrate compliance using the emission averaging option. You must include the information contained in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section in your implementation plan. (i) Identification of all lime kilns in the averaging group, including the lime kiln subcategory, type of lime produced, typical stone production rate, control technology installed, and types of fuel(s) that will be burned. (ii) The HCl or mercury emission rate for each lime kiln for each of the fuels identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. (iii) The date on which you are requesting emission averaging to commence. (3) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove the plan according to the following criteria: (i) Whether the content of the plan includes all the information specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and (ii) Whether the plan presents sufficient information to determine that compliance will be achieved and maintained. (4) The applicable regulatory authority shall not approve an emission averaging implementation plan containing any of the following provisions: (i) Averaging between emissions of differing pollutants; (ii) Averaging that includes lime kilns constructed or reconstructed on or after July 16, 2024; or (iii) Averaging between lime kilns located at different facilities. (iv) Averaging between lime kilns in different subcategories. * * * * * ■ 11. Amend § 63.7121 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: Where: Eg = Monthly production-weighted average emission rate for month ‘‘g’’ for the group of kilns; Ek = Average emission rate for kilns ‘‘k’’, as determined during the last compliance stack test; Pk = Total monthly production of lime produced for kilns ‘‘k’’; and n = Number of kilns in the averaging group. (4) Until 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been accumulated, the monthly weighted average emissions rate, calculated as shown in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, must not exceed the emission limit in table 9 to this subpart in any calendar month. (5) After 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been accumulated, for each subsequent calendar month, you must use equation 2 to this * * * ._.,12 avg Where: Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission rate. Ei = Monthly weighted average for month ‘‘i’’ calculated as shown in equation 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this section. = L..i=1Ei 12 paragraph (g)(5) to calculate the 12month rolling average of the monthly weighted average emission rates for the current month and the previous 11 months. The 12-month rolling weighted average emissions rate for the kilns included in the group must not exceed the emission limits in table 9 to this subpart. Equation 2 to Paragraph (g)(5) /Eq. \" (6) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl subcategory (e.g., high calcium quick lime and dolomitic quick lime) you must establish a kiln-specific emission 2l I limit using equation 3 to this paragraph (g)(6). Equation 3 to Paragraph (g)(6) (Eq. 3) VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 ER16JY24.003</GPH> ER16JY24.004</GPH> * Equation 1 to Paragraph (g)(3) ER16JY24.002</GPH> khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES E (g) If you elect to comply with either the HCl emission limit or the mercury emission limit in table 9 to this subpart using emissions averaging in accordance with an implementation plan approved under the provisions in § 63.7114(c) you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) through (8) of this section. (1) For lime kilns included in the emissions averaging group that are equipped with dry sorbent injection (DSI) or activated carbon injection (ACI) systems, you must comply with the requirements in § 63.7113(h). (2) For kilns included in the emissions averaging group that use a control device or method other than DSI or ACI, you must comply with your sitespecific monitoring plan of this section, in accordance with the requirements of § 63.7100(d). (3) Calculate the monthly productionweighted average emission rate using the HCl or mercury emission rate determined during the last performance test and the actual production data for each kiln included in the emissions averaging option, as shown in equation 1 to this paragraph (g)(3). § 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard? * 57755 57756 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations Where: ELK = kiln-specific allowable emission limit, lb/yr. PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick lime, ton lime produced/ yr. ELQL =Emission limit for high calcium quick lime taken from table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced. PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime, ton lime produced/yr. ELDL = Emission limit for dolomitic quick lime taken from table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced. subcategory, after the close of each calendar month compliance with the kiln-specific emission limit developed in this paragraph (g) would be calculated using equation 4 to this paragraph (g)(7). (7) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl Equation 4 to Paragraph (g)(7) Where: EK = Average emission rate for kiln ‘‘k’’, as determined during the last compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production. PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick lime, ton lime produced/ yr. EQL = Average emission rate for kiln ‘‘k’’ while producing high calcium quick lime, as determined during the last compliance stack test. PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime, ton lime produced/yr. EDL = Average emission rate for kiln ‘‘k’’ while producing dolomitic quick lime, as determined during the last compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production. (8) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl subcategory, compliance using the emissions averaging provisions is demonstrated when EK, as determined using equation 4 to paragraph (g)(7) of this section, is less than ELK, as determined using equation 3 to paragraph (g)(6) of this section. ■ 12. Amend § 63.7131 by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (e)(12), (g), and (h)(3) to read as follows: § 63.7131 when? What reports must I submit and khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES * * * * * (d) * * * (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over a nonopacity or VE emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. (e) * * * (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over a non-opacity or VE emission limit, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. * * * * * (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure specified in this paragraph (g), you must submit reports to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed through the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https:// cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 on the CEDRI website (https:// www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-airemissions/compliance-and-emissionsdata-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is submitted. The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in this paragraph (g). Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (g). (1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address oaqpscbi@ epa.gov, and as described above, should include clear CBI markings and be PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 flagged to the attention of the Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link. (2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send CBI information through the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope. (h) * * * (3) Confidential business information (CBI). (i) The EPA will make all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. (ii) The file must be generated using the EPA’s ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA’s ERT website. (iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. (iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 ER16JY24.005</GPH> (Eq. 4) Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link. (v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send CBI information through the postal service to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope. (vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. (vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDX as described in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. * * * * * § 63.7142 [Amended] 13. Amend § 63.7142 by: a. Removing ‘‘, or’’ at the end of paragraph (a)(3) and adding a period in its place; and ■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(4). ■ 14. Amend § 63.7143 by: ■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ‘‘Dry sorbent injection (DSI)’’ and ‘‘Lime produced’’; ■ b. Removing the definition for ‘‘Lime product’’; and ■ c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definition for ‘‘TEQ’’ and ‘‘Total Organic HAP’’. The additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 63.7143 subpart? What definitions apply to this * * * * * Dry sorbent injection (DSI) means an add-on air pollution control system in which sorbent (e.g., conventional activated carbon, brominated activated carbon, Trona, hydrated lime, sodium carbonate, etc.) is injected into the flue gas steam upstream of a PM control device to react with and neutralize acid gases (such as SO2 and HCl) or mercury in the exhaust stream forming a dry powder material that may be removed in a primary or secondary PM control device. * * * * * Lime produced refers to the production of lime from the lime kiln consisting of high-calcium quick lime, dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. * * * * * TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity equivalents for 57757 dioxins and furans as defined in EPA/ 100/R–10/005, December 2010 (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). The TEFs used to determine the dioxin and furan TEQs are listed in table 11 to this subpart. Total Organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of appendix A to this part or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one or more sample components are below the method defined analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may include a combination of method detection level data and analytical data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make this determination under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). * * * * * 15. Revise tables 1 through 6, 8, and 9 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows: ■ khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS [As required in § 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown (see table 2 to this subpart for emission limits for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown).] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 1. All existing lime kilns and their associated lime coolers that did not have a wet scrubber installed and operating prior to January 5, 2004. 2. All existing lime kilns and their associated lime coolers that have a wet scrubber, where the scrubber itself was installed and operating prior to January 5, 2004. 3. All new lime kilns and their associated lime coolers. 4. All existing and new lime kilns and their associated coolers at your LMP, and you choose to average PM emissions, except that any kiln that is allowed to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit is ineligible for averaging. PM emissions must not exceed 0.12 pounds per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf). 5. New straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 6. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/tsf. If, at any time after January 5, 2004, the kiln changes to a dry control system, then the PM emission limit in item 1 of this table 1 applies, and the kiln is hereafter ineligible for the PM emission limit in item 2 of this table 1 regardless of the method of PM control. PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/tsf. Weighted average PM emissions calculated according to equation 2 to § 63.7112(f)(1) must not exceed 0.12 lb/tsf (if you are averaging only existing kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are averaging only new kilns). If you are averaging existing and new kilns, your weighted average PM emissions must not exceed the weighted average emission limit calculated according to equation 3 to § 63.7112(g), except that no new kiln and its associated cooler considered alone may exceed an average PM emissions limit of 0.10 lb/tsf. HCl emissions must not exceed 1.7 lb/ton of lime produced. HCl emissions must not exceed 2.3 lb/ton of lime produced. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57758 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSION LIMITS—Continued [As required in § 63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown (see table 2 to this subpart for emission limits for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown).] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 7. New straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 8. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 9. All preheater rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 10. All preheater rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 11. All vertical lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 12. All vertical lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 13. All new lime kilns and their associated coolers. 14. All existing lime kilns and their associated coolers. 15. All lime kilns and their associated coolers ... 16. All lime kilns and their associated coolers ... 17. Stack emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source. 18. Stack emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. 19. Fugitive emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, except as provided by item 8 of this table 1. 20. All PSH operations at a new or existing affected source enclosed in a building. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.015 lb/ton of lime produced. 21. Each FF that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin. 22. Each set of multiple storage bins at a new or existing affected source, with combined stack emissions. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.52 lb/ton of lime produced. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton of lime produced. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.096 lb/ton of lime produced. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton of lime produced. HCl emissions must not exceed 0.021 lb/ton of lime produced. Mercury emissions must not exceed 27 lb/MMton of lime produced. Mercury emissions must not exceed 34 lb/MMton of lime produced. Total Organic HAP emissions must not exceed 2.6 ppmvd @7% O2. D/F emissions must not exceed 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ) 1 @7% O2. PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm). Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity. All of the individually affected PSH operations must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations in items 5 through 7 of this table 1, or the building must comply with the following: There must be no VE from the building, except from a vent; and vent emissions must not exceed the stack emissions limitations in items 5 and 6 of this table 1. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity. You must comply with the emission limits in items 5 and 6 of this table 1. 1 Determined using the toxic equivalency factors listed in Table 2 of Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds (incorporated by reference, see § 63.14). When calculating TEQ, zero may be used for congeners that are below the estimated detection level (EDL). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN EMISSION LIMITS FOR KILNS AND COOLERS [As required in § 63.7090(b), on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit You have demonstrated compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . . 1. All new and existing lime kilns and their associated coolers equipped with an FF or an ESP during each startup. Emissions must not exceed 15 percent opacity (based on startup period block average). 2. All existing lime kilns and their associated coolers that have a wet scrubber during each startup. See item 2.b of table 3 to this subpart for emission limit i. Installed, maintained, calibrated and operated a COMS as required by the general provisions of subpart A of this part and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, except as specified in § 63.7113(g)(2); ii. Collected the COMS data at a frequency of at least once every 15 seconds, determining block averages for each startup period and demonstrating for each startup block period the average opacity does not exceed 15 percent. See item 1 of table 6 to this subpart for requirements for demonstrating compliance. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 57759 TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—STARTUP AND SHUTDOWN EMISSION LIMITS FOR KILNS AND COOLERS— Continued [As required in § 63.7090(b), on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit You have demonstrated compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . . 3. All new and existing lime kilns and their associated coolers equipped with an FF or an ESP during shutdown. Emissions must not exceed 15 percent opacity (based on 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 15 percent). 4. All existing lime kilns and their associated coolers that have a wet scrubber during shutdown. 5. All new and existing lime kilns that use dry sorbent injection or carbon injection during startup and shutdown. See item 2.b of table 3 to this subpart for emission limit i. Installed, maintained, calibrated and operated a COMS as required by the general provisions of subpart A of this and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, except as specified in § 63.7113(g)(2); ii. Collecting the COMS data at a frequency of at least once every 15 seconds, determining block averages for each 6-minute period and demonstrating for each 6-minute block period the average opacity does not exceed 15 percent. See item 1 of table 6 to this subpart for requirements for demonstrating compliance. When a lime kiln is in startup or shutdown (as defined in § 63.7143), the operating limits for sorbent and/or carbon injection do not apply in table 3 to this subpart, and the lime kiln operator shall ensure that sorbent or carbon injection is in operation until the unit is no longer in startup or shutdown. During startup and shutdown, the control device shall be operated in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations or by a site-specific operating procedure for startup and shutdown events. 6. When a lime kiln is in startup or shutdown (as defined in § 63.7143), the temperature limits for a thermal oxidizer in table 3 to this subpart do not apply and the lime kiln operator shall ensure that the thermal oxidizer is in operation until the unit is no longer in startup or shutdown. During startup and shutdown, the control device shall be operated in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations or by a site-specific operating procedure for startup and shutdown events. 6. All new and existing lime kilns that use a thermal oxidizer during startup and shutdown. TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS [As required in § 63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown (See table 2 to this subpart for operating limits during startup and shutdown).] For . . . You must . . . 1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler (if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with an FF. 2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. Maintain and operate the FF such that the BLDS or PM detector alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113(d) through (f) and table 6 to this subpart. In lieu of a BLDS or PM detector maintain the FF such that the 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 15 percent; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113(f) and (g) and table 6 to this subpart. a. Maintain the 3-hour block exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the greater of the pressure drop operating limit established during the most recent performance test for PM and HCl; and b. Maintain the 3-hour block scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the greater of the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test for PM and HCl. Install a PM detector and maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6-month period, and comply with § 63.7113(e); or, maintain the ESP such that the 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 15 percent, and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113(g); and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113(f) and table 6 to this subpart. Maintain the 3-hour block average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the greater of the pressure drop operating limit established during the performance test for PM and HCl; and maintain the 3-hour block average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the greater of the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test for PM and HCl. Prepare a written OM&M plan; the plan must include the items listed in § 63.7100(d) and the corrective actions to be taken when required in table 6 to this subpart. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 3. Each lime kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator. 4. Each PSH operation subject to a PM limit which uses a wet scrubber. 5. All affected sources .................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57760 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—OPERATING LIMITS—Continued [As required in § 63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown (See table 2 to this subpart for operating limits during startup and shutdown).] For . . . You must . . . 6. Each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution control device. a. Vent captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet to an FF; and b. Operate each capture/collection system according to the procedures and requirements in the OM&M plan. Maintain the 3-hour block dry sorbent flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test for HCl. Maintain the 3-hour block average combustion chamber temperature greater or equal to the greater of the combustion chamber operating limit established in the most recent performance test for total organic HAP and D/F. Maintain the 3-hour block activated carbon injection flow rate greater than or equal to the greater of the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test for total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury. 7. Each lime kiln equipped with dry sorbent injection. 8. Each lime kiln equipped with a thermal oxidizer. 9. Each lime kiln equipped with activated carbon injection. TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS [As required in § 63.7114, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the following table.] For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . . For the following emission limit . . . 1. All new or existing lime Emission limits as identified in table 1 to this subpart, kilns and their associated or a weighted average calculated according to equalime coolers (kilns/coolers). tion 3 to § 63.7112. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 2. Stack emissions from all PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm ................. PHS operations at a new or existing affected source. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 The kiln outlet PM, HCl, mercury, and Total Organic HAP, and dioxins and furans emissions (and if applicable, summed with the separate cooler PM emissions), based on the PM emissions measured using Method 5 or 5D in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, HCl measured using Method 320 or 321 in appendix A to this part, mercury measured using Method 29 or 30B 5D in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, and the stone feed rate measurement over the period of initial performance test and Total Organic HAP measured using Method 18 5D in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and/or Method 320 in appendix A to this part and dioxins and furans measured using Method 23 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, do not exceed the emission limit; if the lime kiln is controlled by an FF or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions with a BLDS or PM detector, you have installed and are operating the monitoring device according to the requirements in § 63.7113(d) or (e), respectively; and if the lime kiln is controlled by an FF or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions using a COMS, you have installed and are operating the COMS according to the requirements in § 63.7113(g). If the kiln is equipped with a dry sorbent injection system, you have a record of the dry sorbent and/or carbon injection flow rate operating parameter over the 3-hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation. If the kiln is equipped with a thermal oxidizer, you have a record of the combustion chamber operating temperature operating parameter over the 3-hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation. The outlet PM emissions, based on Method 5 or Method 17 in appendices A–3 and A–6, respectively, to 40 CFR part 60, over the period of the initial performance test do not exceed 0.05 g/dscm; and if the emission unit is controlled with a wet scrubber, you have a record of the scrubber’s pressure drop and liquid flow rate operating parameters over the 3-hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation. E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 57761 TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS—Continued [As required in § 63.7114, you must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the following table.] For . . . For the following emission limit . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . . 3. Stack emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. 4. Fugitive emissions from all PSH operations at a new or existing affected source. 5. All PSH operations at a new or existing affected source, enclosed in building. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the thirty 6-minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit. At least thirty 6-minute averages must be obtained. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity ............. 6. Each FF that controls emissions from only an individual storage bin. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the 6-minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60, does not exceed the 10 percent opacity limit. All the PSH operations enclosed in the building have demonstrated initial compliance according to the applicable requirements for items 2 through 4 of this table 4; or if you are complying with the building emission limitations, there are no VE from the building according to item 18 of table 5 to this subpart and § 63.7112(k), and you demonstrate initial compliance with applicable building vent emissions limitations according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this table 4. Each of the ten 6-minute averages during the 1-hour initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit. You demonstrate initial compliance according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this table 4. All of the individually affected PSH operations must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations for items 2 through 4 of this table 4, or the building must comply with the following: There must be no VE from the building, except from a vent, and vent emissions must not exceed the emission limitations in items 2 and 3 of this table 4. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 7. Each set of multiple storYou must comply with emission limitations in items 2 age bins with combined and 3 of this table 4. stack emissions. 8. All new or existing lime You must meet the emission limitations for HCl, merkilns and their associated cury, total organic HAP, and dioxins and furans in lime coolers (kilns/coolers). items 5 through 16 of table 1 to this subpart. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 The kiln outlet HCl, mercury, total organic HAP, and D/ F emissions (and if applicable, summed with the separate cooler emissions), based on the emissions measured according to table 5 to this subpart over the period of the initial performance test do not exceed the applicable limits in items 5 through 16 of table 1 to this subpart. If the emission unit is controlled with a wet scrubber, during the HCl performance test you have a record of the scrubber’s pressure drop and liquid flow rate operating parameters over the performance test during which emissions did not exceed the HCl emissions limitation. If the emission unit is controlled with a dry sorbent injection, during the HCl performance test you have a record of the dry sorbent flow rate operating parameter over the HCl performance test during which emissions did not exceed the HCl emissions limitation. If the emission unit is controlled with a thermal oxidizer, during the total organic HAP and D/F performance test(s) you have a record of the temperature operating parameter over the total organic HAP and D/F performance test during which emissions did not exceed the total organic HAP and D/F emissions limitation(s). If the emission unit is controlled with an activated carbon injection, during the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury performance test(s) you have a record of the temperature operating parameter over the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury performance test(s) during which emissions did not exceed the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury emissions limitation(s). E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57762 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS [As required in § 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 1. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 2. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 3. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 4. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. 5. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a negative pressure PM control device. Select the location of the sampling ports and the number of traverse points. Method 1 or 1A of appendix A– 1 to 40 CFR part 60; and § 63.6(d)(1)(i). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device(s) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendices A–1 and A–2 to 40 CFR part 60. Not applicable. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A–2 to 40 CFR part 60. You may use manual procedures (but not instrumental procedures) of ASME PTC 19.10–1981—Part 10 (see § 63.14 for availability) as an alternative to using Method 3B. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60. Not applicable. Measure PM emissions ............ Method 5 in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60. 6. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler, and which uses a positive pressure FF or ESP. Measure PM emissions ............ Method 5D in appendix A–3 to 40 CFR part 60. 7. Each lime kiln ........................ Determine the mass rate of stone feed to the kiln during the kiln performance test. Any suitable device .................. 8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. Establish the operating limit for the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber during the PM and HCl performance test(s). Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber during the PM and HCl performance test(s). Have installed and have operating the BLDS or PM detector prior to the PM performance test. Have installed and have operating the COMS prior to the performance test. Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the kiln performance test. Conduct the test(s) when the source is operating at representative operating conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e) before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in §§ 63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b) on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e); the minimum sampling volume must be 0.85 dry standard cubic meter (dscm) (30 dry standard cubic foot (dscf)); if there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 test of the cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. Conduct the test(s) when the source is operating at representative operating conditions in accordance with § 63.7(e) before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in §§ 63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b) on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e); If there is a separate lime cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, you must conduct the Method 5 or 5D test of the separate cooler exhaust concurrently with the kiln exhaust test. Refer to item 5 of this table for sampling time and volume requirements. Calibrate and maintain the device according to manufacturer’s instructions; the measuring device used must be accurate to within ±5 percent of the mass rate of stone feed over its operating range. The continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). 9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber. 10. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF or ESP that is monitored with a PM detector. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 11. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF or ESP that is monitored with a COMS. 12. Each stack emission from a PSH operation, vent from a building enclosing a PSH operation, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to a PM emission limit. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Measure PM emissions ............ Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the kiln performance test. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM&M plan. Standard operating procedures incorporated into the OM&M plan and as required by the general provisions of subpart A of this part and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, except as specified in § 63.7113(g)(2). Method 5 or Method 17 in appendices A–3 and A–6 to 40 CFR part 60. Frm 00046 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). According to the requirements in § 63.7113(d) or (e), respectively. According to the requirements in § 63.7113(g). The sample volume must be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf); for Method 5, if the gas stream being sampled is at ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated without heaters; and if the gas stream is above ambient temperature, the sampling probe and filter may be operated at a temperature high enough, but no higher than 121 °C (250 °F), to prevent water condensation on the filter (Method 17 may be used only with exhaust gas temperatures of not more than 250 °F). E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 57763 TABLE 5 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS—Continued [As required in § 63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . . 13. Each stack emission from a PSH operation, vent from a building enclosing a PSH operation, or set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions, which is subject to an opacity limit. 14. Each stack emissions source from a PSH operation subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. 15. Each stack emissions source from a PSH operation subject to a PM or opacity limit, which uses a wet scrubber. 16. Each FF that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed, new or existing storage bin. 17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH operation subject to an opacity limit. Conduct opacity observations .. Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60. The test duration must be for at least 3 hours and you must obtain at least thirty, 6-minute averages. Establish the average gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber during the PM and HCl performance test(s). Establish the operating limit for the average liquid flow rate to the scrubber during the PM and HCl performance test(s). Conduct opacity observations .. Data for the gas stream pressure drop measurement device during the PSH operation stack performance test. The pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the pressure drop data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). Data from the liquid flow rate measurement device during the PSH operation stack performance test. The continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within plus or minus 1 percent; you must collect the flow rate data during the period of the performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The test duration must be for at least 1 hour and you must obtain ten 6-minute averages. Conduct opacity observations .. Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60. 18. Each building enclosing any PSH operation, that is subject to a VE limit. Conduct VE check ................... The specifications in § 63.7112(k). 19. Each lime kiln ...................... Measure hydrogen chloride ..... Method 320 or 321 of appendix A to this part or ASTM 6348– 12 (Reapproved 2020) 1 2. 20. Each lime kiln ...................... Measure mercury ..................... Method 29 or 30B of appendix A–8 to 40 CFR part 60 or ASTM D6784–16 2. 21. Each lime kiln ...................... Measure total organic HAP 3 .... Method 18 and/or 320 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60 and/or ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020) 1. 22. Each lime kiln ...................... Measure dioxins/furans ............ Method 23 in appendix A–7 to 40 CFR part 60. 23. Each lime kiln equipped with dry sorbent injection. Establish the operating limit for the dry sorbent flow rate during the HCl performance test. Data for the dry sorbent flow rate device during the HCl performance test. 24. Each lime kiln equipped with a thermal oxidizer. Establish the operating limit for the combustion chamber temperature during the total organic HAP and D/F performance test(s). Establish the operating limit for the combustion chamber temperature during the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury performance test(s). Data for the temperature device during the total organic HAP and D/F performance test(s). khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES 25. Each lime kiln equipped with activated carbon injection. Method 9 in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60. Data for the activated carbon flow rate device during the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury performance test(s). The test duration must be for at least 3 hours, but the 3-hour test may be reduced to 1 hour if, during the first 1-hour period, there are no individual readings greater than 10 percent opacity and there are no more than three readings of 10 percent during the first 1-hour period. The performance test must be conducted while all affected PSH operations within the building are operating; the performance test for each affected building must be at least 75 minutes, with each side of the building and roof being observed for at least 15 minutes. The test duration must be at least one hour. HCl must be used for the analyte spiking. For a positive pressure FF or ESP, determine the number of sampling points per the stratification check procedures of section 8.1.2 of Method 7E in appendix A–4 to 40 CFR part 60 using the sample points determined using the procedures of Section 8 of EPA Method 5D. For Method 29 and ASTM D6784–16 2 the test duration must be at least two hours and the sample volume must be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). For Method 30B, the test duration must be at least one hour and the sample volume at least 100 liters. For a positive pressure FF or ESP, use the procedures of Section 8 of EPA Method 5D for sampling points. The test duration must be at least 1 hour. For EPA Method 320 and ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020), for a positive pressure FF or ESP, determine the number of sampling points per the stratification check procedures of section 8.1.2 of Method 7E using the sample points determined using the procedures of Section 8 of EPA Method 5D. The test duration must be at least 3 hours and the must be at least 3 dscm (106 dscf). For a positive pressure FF or ESP, use the procedures of Section 8 of EPA Method 5D for sampling points. The flow monitor must meet the criteria in § 63.7113(h); you must collect the dry sorbent flow rate data during the period of the HCl performance test and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The temperature device must meet the criteria in § 63.7113(i); you must collect the temperature data during the period of the total organic HAP and D/F performance test(s) and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). The flow monitor must meet the criteria in § 63.7113(h); you must collect the activated carbon flow rate data during the period of the total organic HAP, D/F, and mercury performance test(s)and determine the operating limit according to § 63.7112(j). 1 When using ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020) the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020), annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory. In ASTM D6348–12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% ≥ R ≤ 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound according to: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) × 100. 2 Incorporated by reference, see § 63.14. 3 Total Organic HAP is the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57764 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES TABLE 6 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH OPERATING LIMITS [As required in § 63.7121, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit listed in Table 3 to subpart AAAAA that applies to you, according to the following table.] For . . . For the following operating limit . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 1. Each lime kiln controlled by a wet scrubber. Maintain the 3-hour block average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the performance test; and maintain the 3hour block average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. 2. Each lime kiln or lime cooler equipped with a FF and using a BLDS, and each lime kiln equipped with an ESP or FF using a PM detector. a. Maintain and operate the FF or ESP such that the bag leak or PM detector alarm, is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month period. 3. Each stack emissions source from a PSH operation subject to an opacity limit, which is controlled by a wet scrubber. Maintain the 3-hour block average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the performance test; and maintain the 3hour block average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. 4. For each lime kiln or lime cooler equipped with a FF or an ESP that uses a COMS as the monitoring device. a. Maintain and operate the FF or ESP such that the average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 15 percent. 7. Each lime kiln equipped with dry sorbent and/or activated carbon injection. Maintain the 3-hour block dry sorbent and/or activated carbon flow rate greater than or equal to the stack flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test.. 8. Each lime kiln equipped with a thermal oxidizer. Maintain the 3-hour block average combustion chamber temperature greater or equal to the combustion chamber operating limit established in the most recent performance test. Collecting the wet scrubber operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113(a); maintaining the 3-hour block average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the performance test; and maintaining the 3-hour block average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test (the continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within ±1% and the continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within ±1%). i. Operating the FF or ESP so that the alarm on the bag leak or PM detection system is not activated and an alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in each 6-month reporting period; and continuously recording the output from the BLD or PM detection system; and ii. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted (if the owner or operator takes longer than 1 hour to initiate corrective actions, alarm time will be counted as the actual amount of time taken by the owner or operator to initiate corrective actions); if inspection of the FF or ESP system demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time will be counted. Collecting the wet scrubber operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113(a); maintaining the 3-hour block average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the performance test; and maintaining the 3-hour block average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test (the continuous scrubbing liquid flow rate measuring device must be accurate within ±1% and the continuous pressure drop measurement device must be accurate within ±1%). i. Installing, maintaining, calibrating and operating a COMS as required by the general provisions of subpart A of this part and according to PS–1 of appendix B to 40 CFR part 60, except as specified in § 63.7113(g)(2); and ii. Collecting the COMS data at a frequency of at least once every 15 seconds, determining block averages for each 6minute period and demonstrating for each 6-minute block period the average opacity does not exceed 15 percent. Collecting the dry sorbent and/or activated carbon injection operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113(a); maintaining the 3-hour block average injection flow rate greater than or equal to the injection flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. Collecting the thermal oxidizer operating data according to all applicable requirements in § 63.7113 and reducing the data according to § 63.7113(a); maintaining the 3-hour block average combustion chamber temperature greater than or equal to the combustion chamber operating limit established during the performance test. * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 57765 TABLE 8 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—REQUIREMENTS FOR REPORTS [As required in § 63.7131, you must submit each report in the following table that applies to you.] You must submit a . . . The report must contain . . . You must submit the report . . . 1. Compliance report .......................................... a. If there are no deviations from any emission limitations (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that applies to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period; b. If there were no periods during which the CMS, including any operating parameter monitoring system, was out-of-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period; c. If you have a deviation from any emission limitation (emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) during the reporting period, the report must contain the information in § 63.7131(d); d. If there were periods during which the CMS, including any operating parameter monitoring system, was out-of-control, as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), the report must contain the information in § 63.7131(e); and e. Before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10(d)(5)(i). On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you failed to meet an applicable standard, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.7131(c)(3). Actions taken for the event .............................. Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). 2. Before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. 3. Before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), an immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report if you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the reporting period that is not consistent with your SSMP. 4. Performance Test Report ............................... Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). Semiannually according to the requirements in § 63.7131(b). By fax or telephone within 2 working days after starting actions inconsistent with the SSMP. The information in § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) .................. By letter within 7 working days after the end of the event unless you have made alternative arrangements with the permitting authority. See § 63.10(d)(5)(ii). The information required in § 63.7(g) and § 63.7112(h). According to the requirements of § 63.7131. khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES TABLE 9 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSIONS AVERAGING EMISSION LIMITS [As required in § 63.7090(d), if you are using emissions averaging for either HCl emission limits or mercury emission limits you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 1. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 2. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 3. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 4. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime. 5. All vertical lime kilns and their associated coolers producing dolomitic quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime. 6. All vertical lime kilns and their associated coolers producing high-calcium quick lime ............. HCl emissions must lime produced. HCl emissions must lime produced. HCl emissions must lime produced. HCl emissions must lime produced. HCl emissions must lime produced. HCl emissions must lime produced. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 not exceed 2.1 lb/ton of not exceed 0.047 lb/ton of not exceed 0.36 lb/ton of not exceed 0.087 lb/ton of not exceed 0.36 lb/ton of not exceed 0.019 lb/ton of 57766 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 9 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—EMISSIONS AVERAGING EMISSION LIMITS—Continued [As required in § 63.7090(d), if you are using emissions averaging for either HCl emission limits or mercury emission limits you must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.] For . . . You must meet the following emission limit 7. Existing lime kilns and their associated coolers ......................................................................... Mercury emissions must not exceed 31 lb/ MMton of lime produced. 16. Add tables 10 and 11 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows: ■ TABLE 10 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA [As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table.] Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement? § 63.1(a)(1) through (4) .................. § 63.1(a)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(6) ..................................... § 63.1(a)(7) through (9) .................. § 63.1(a)(10) through (14) .............. § 63.1(b)(1) ..................................... Applicability ................................... Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.1(b)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(b)(3) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(1) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(2) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(3) and (4) ........................ § 63.1(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.1(c)(6) ..................................... § 63.1(d) ......................................... § 63.1(e) ......................................... § 63.2 ............................................. § 63.3(a) through (c) ...................... § 63.4(a)(1) and (2) ........................ § 63.4(a)(3) through (5) .................. § 63.4(b) and (c) ............................ § 63.5(a)(1) and (2) ........................ § 63.5(b)(1) ..................................... § 63.5(b)(2) ..................................... § 63.5(b)(3) and (4) ........................ § 63.5(b)(5) ..................................... § 63.5(b)(6) ..................................... § 63.5(c) ......................................... § 63.5(d)(1) through (4) .................. § 63.5(e) ......................................... § 63.5(f)(1) and (2) ......................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES § 63.6(a) ......................................... § 63.6(b)(1) through (5) .................. § 63.6(b)(6) ..................................... § 63.6(b)(7) ..................................... § 63.6(c)(1) and (2) ........................ § 63.6(c)(3) and (4) ........................ § 63.6(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.6(d) ......................................... § 63.6(e)(1)(i) ................................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Applicability ................................... Applicability ................................... Initial Applicability Determination .. Initial Applicability Determination .. Applicability After Standard Established. Permit Requirements .................... Area Source Becomes Major ....... Reclassification ............................. Applicability of Permit Program .... Definitions ..................................... Units and Abbreviations ............... Prohibited Activities ...................... Circumvention, Severability .......... Construction/Reconstruction ......... Compliance Dates ........................ Construction Approval, Applicability. Applicability ................................... Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Approval of Construction/Reconstruction. Compliance for Standards and Maintenance. Compliance Dates ........................ Compliance Dates ........................ Compliance Dates ........................ Compliance Dates ........................ General Duty to Minimize Emissions. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4700 Explanations §§ 63.7081 and 63.7142 specify additional applicability determination requirements. No. Yes. Yes. No ................................................. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Area sources not subject to this subpart, except all sources must make initial applicability determination. Additional definitions in § 63.7143. No. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7100 for general duty requirement. 16JYR1 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 57767 TABLE 10 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued [As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table.] Summary of requirement Citation § 63.6(e)(1)(ii) ................................. Requirement to Correct Malfunctions ASAP. § 63.6(e)(1)(iii) ................................ Operation and Maintenance Requirements. § 63.6(e)(2) ..................................... § 63.6(e)(3) ..................................... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan. No ................................................. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No ................................................. SSM exemption ............................ § 63.6(f)(2) and (3) ......................... Methods for Determining Compliance. Alternative Standard ..................... SSM exemption ............................ Yes. Methods for Determining Compliance. Yes. § 63.6(h)(2) ..................................... Yes. No ................................................. § 63.6(h)(3) ..................................... § 63.6(h)(4) through (h)(5)(i) .......... Opacity/VE Standards .................. No. Yes ................................................ § 63.6(h)(5)(ii) and (iii) .................... Opacity/VE Standards .................. No ................................................. § 63.6(h)(5)(iv) ................................ § 63.6(h)(5)(v) ................................ § 63.6(h)(6) ..................................... § 63.6(h)(7) ..................................... § 63.6(h)(8) ..................................... § 63.6(h)(9) ..................................... § 63.6(i)(1) through (14) ................. § 63.6(i)(15) .................................... § 63.6(i)(16) .................................... § 63.6(j) .......................................... § 63.7(a)(1) through (3) .................. Opacity/VE Standards .................. Opacity/VE Standards .................. Opacity/VE Standards .................. COM Use ...................................... Compliance with Opacity and VE Adjustment of Opacity Limit ......... Extension of Compliance .............. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ § 63.7(b) ......................................... § 63.7(c) ......................................... § 63.7(d) ......................................... § 63.7(e)(1) ..................................... Notification .................................... Quality Assurance/Test Plan ........ Testing Facilities ........................... Conduct of Tests .......................... § 63.7(e)(2) through (4) .................. § 63.7(f) .......................................... § 63.7(g) ......................................... § 63.7(h) ......................................... § 63.8(a)(1) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(2) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(3) ..................................... § 63.8(a)(4) ..................................... § 63.8(b)(1) through (3) .................. Conduct of Tests .......................... Alternative Test Method ............... Data Analysis ................................ Waiver of Tests ............................ Monitoring Requirements ............. Monitoring ..................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Extension of Compliance .............. Exemption from Compliance ........ Performance Testing Requirements. Monitoring ..................................... Conduct of Monitoring .................. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4700 Explanations Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes. § 63.6(f)(1) ...................................... § 63.6(g)(1) through (3) .................. § 63.6(h)(1) ..................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Am I subject to this requirement? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes. No. No ................................................. Yes. Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM [Reserved]. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), the OM&M plan must address periods of startup and shutdown. See § 63.7100(d). See § 63.7100. For periods of startup and shutdown, see § 63.7090(c). See § 63.7100. For periods of startup and shutdown, see § 63.7090(c). This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance checks required in table 5 to this subpart. Test durations are specified in this subpart; this subpart takes precedence. § 63.7110 specifies deadlines; § 63.7112 has additional specific requirements. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7112(b). See § 63.7113. Flares not applicable. 16JYR1 57768 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued [As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table.] Citation Summary of requirement Am I subject to this requirement? § 63.8(c)(1)(i) .................................. CMS Operation/Maintenance ....... § 63.8(c)(1)(ii) ................................. § 63.8(c)(1)(iii) ................................ CMS Spare Parts ......................... Requirement to Develop SSM Plan for CMS. § 63.8(c)(2) and (3) ........................ § 63.8(c)(4) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii) ..................... CMS Operation/Maintenance ....... CMS Requirements ...................... Cycle Time for COM and CEMS .. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes. No ................................................. Yes ................................................ § 63.8(c)(5) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(6) ..................................... § 63.8(c)(7) and (8) ........................ § 63.8(d)(1) and (2) ........................ § 63.8(d)(3) ..................................... Minimum COM procedures .......... CMS Requirements ...................... CMS Requirements ...................... Quality Control .............................. Quality Control .............................. § 63.8(e) ......................................... § 63.8(f)(1) through (5) ................... § 63.8(f)(6) ...................................... § 63.9(e) ......................................... § 63.9(f) .......................................... Performance Evaluation for CMS Alternative Monitoring Method ...... Alternative to Relative Accuracy Test for CEMS. Data Reduction; Data That Cannot Be Used. Notification Requirements ............ Initial Notifications ......................... Request for Compliance Extension. New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements. Notification of Performance Test .. Notification of VE/Opacity Test .... § 63.9(g) ......................................... Additional CMS Notifications ........ No ................................................. § 63.9(h)(1) through (3) .................. § 63.9(h)(4) ..................................... § 63.9(h)(5) and (6) ........................ § 63.9(i) .......................................... § 63.9(j) .......................................... § 63.9(k) ......................................... § 63.10(a) ....................................... Notification of Compliance Status Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes ................................................ § 63.8(g)(1) through (5) .................. § 63.9(a) ......................................... § 63.9(b) ......................................... § 63.9(c) ......................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES § 63.9(d) ......................................... § 63.10(b)(1) ................................... § 63.10(b)(2)(i) ............................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Notification of Compliance Status Adjustment of Deadlines .............. Change in Previous Information ... Electronic reporting procedures ... Recordkeeping/Reporting General Requirements. Records ........................................ Recordkeeping of Occurrence and Duration of Startups and Shutdowns. Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4700 Yes ................................................ No ................................................. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes ................................................ Yes. No ................................................. No ................................................. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes. Explanations On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7100 for OM&M requirements. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), no longer required. See § 63.7121. No CEMS are required under this subpart; see § 63.7113 for CPMS requirements. COM not required. See § 63.7113. See also § 63.7113. See also § 63.7113. No CEMS required in this subpart. See data reduction requirements in §§ 63.7120 and 63.7121. See § 63.7130. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ This requirement only applies to opacity and VE performance tests required in table 5 to this subpart. Notification not required for VE/opacity test under table 7 to this subpart. Not required for operating parameter monitoring. Only as specified in § 63.9(j). See §§ 63.7131 through 63.7133. Yes. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 57769 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 10 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART AAAAA—Continued [As required in § 63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table.] Summary of requirement Citation Explanations On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7132 for recordkeeping of (1) date, time and duration; (2) listing of affected source or equipment, and an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure. § 63.10(b)(2)(ii) ............................... Recordkeeping of Failures to Meet a Standard. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) .............................. § 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v) ................. Maintenance Records ................... Actions Taken to Minimize Emissions During SSM. § 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xii) ......... § 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ............................ Recordkeeping for CMS ............... Records for Relative Accuracy Test. Records for Notification ................ Applicability Determinations ......... Additional CMS Recordkeeping ... General Reporting Requirements Performance Test Results ............ Opacity or VE Observations ......... Yes. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes. No. § 63.10(b)(2)(xiv) ............................ § 63.10(b)(3) ................................... § 63.10(c) ....................................... § 63.10(d)(1) ................................... § 63.10(d)(2) ................................... § 63.10(d)(3) ................................... § 63.10(d)(4) ................................... § 63.10(d)(5)(i) ............................... Progress Reports .......................... Periodic Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports. § 63.10(d)(5)(ii) ............................... Immediate Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports. § 63.10(e) ....................................... Additional CMS Reports ............... § 63.10(f) ........................................ Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting. Control Device and Work Practice Requirements. State Authority and Delegations ... State/Regional Addresses ............ Incorporation by Reference .......... Availability of Information and Confidentiality. Performance Track Provisions ..... § 63.11(a) and (b) .......................... § 63.12(a) § 63.13(a) § 63.14(a) § 63.15(a) through through and (b) and (b) (c) .................... (c) .................... .......................... .......................... § 63.16 ........................................... khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES Am I subject to this requirement? Yes. Yes. No ................................................. Yes. Yes. Yes ................................................ Yes. Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). Yes before the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No on and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e). No ................................................. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7100 for OM&M requirements. See § 63.7132. For the periodic monitoring requirements in table 7 to this subpart, report according to § 63.10(d)(3) only if VE observed and subsequent visual opacity test is required. On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in § 63.7083(e), see § 63.7131 for malfunction reporting requirements. See specific requirements in this subpart, see § 63.7131. Yes. No ................................................. Flares not applicable. Yes. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. TABLE 11 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE FACTORS (TEFS) FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS, DIBENZOFURANS, AND DIOXIN-LIKE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS 2005 TEFs 1 Dioxin/Furan 2,3,7,8–TCDD ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD ............................................................................................................................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1 1 1 0.1 57770 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 136 / Tuesday, July 16, 2024 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 11 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63—TOXICITY EQUIVALENCE FACTORS (TEFS) FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF POLYCHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXINS, DIBENZOFURANS, AND DIOXIN-LIKE POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS—Continued 2005 TEFs 1 Dioxin/Furan 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD ........................................................................................................................................................................... OCDD .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,3,7,8–TCDF ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF ............................................................................................................................................................................ OCDF ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.0003 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 0.0003 1 EPA/100/R–10/005, ‘‘Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds’’, December 2010. (See § 63.14 for availability.) [FR Doc. 2024–14692 Filed 7–15–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 170 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0133; FRL–8528–04– OCSPP] RIN 2070–AK92 Federal Register document; it does not contain the draft final rule. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division (7508M), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566–2376; email address: schroeder.carolyn@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notification of Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture; Draft Final Rule; Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Reconsideration of the Application Exclusion Zone Amendments Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture. AGENCY: This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA has forwarded a draft final rule to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entitled ‘‘Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard; Reconsideration of the Application Exclusion Zone Amendments.’’ The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available to the public by EPA. DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2022–0133, is available at https:// www.regulations.gov. That docket contains historical information and this khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:00 Jul 15, 2024 Jkt 262001 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 170 Environmental protection, Pesticides, Agricultural worker, Pesticide handler, Employer, Farms, Forests, Nurseries, Greenhouses, Worker protection standard. Dated: July 9, 2024. Michal Freedhoff, Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. [FR Doc. 2024–15447 Filed 7–15–24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P I. What action is EPA taking? FIFRA section 25(a)(2)(B) requires the EPA to provide the USDA with a copy of any draft final rule at least 30 days before signing it in final form for publication in the Federal Register. The draft final rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary of USDA comments in writing regarding the draft final rule within 15 days after receiving it, the EPA Administrator must include the comments of the USDA Secretary, if requested by the Secretary, and the EPA Administrator’s response to those comments with the final rule that publishes in the Federal Register. If the Secretary of USDA does not comment in writing within 15 days after receiving the draft final rule, then the EPA Administrator may sign the final rule for publication in the Federal Register any time after the 15-day period. II. Do any statutory and Executive Order reviews apply to this notification? No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document. PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2020–0700; FRL–10420–01– OCSPP] Trichoderma atroviride Strain K5 NRRL B–50520; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of Trichoderma atroviride strain K5 NRRL B–50520 in or on all food commodities when used in accordance with label directions and good agricultural practices. Agrauxine Corp., submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting the exemption from a requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of Trichoderma atroviride strain K5 NRRL B–50520 under FFDCA when used in SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM 16JYR1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57738-57770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-14692]



[[Page 57738]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-5948.1-03-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV59


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes our amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants 
(Lime Manufacturing NESHAP). Specifically, we are finalizing maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards for hydrogen chloride 
(HCl), mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F).

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 16, 2024. The 
incorporation by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the 
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of 
September 16, 2024.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. 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 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 at the EPA Docket Center, 
WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
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 U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Brian Storey, Mail Drop: D243-04, 109 T.W. 
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, North Carolina 27711; telephone 
number: (919) 541-1103; and email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the 
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. 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:

CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DB dead burned dolomitic lime
D/F dioxin/furans
DL dolomitic lime
DSI dry sorbent injection
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FF fabric filter
FR Federal Register
g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HBEL health-based emission limit
HCl hydrogen chloride
IQV intra-quarry variability
lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million tons of lime produced at 
the kiln
lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone feed
MACT maximum achievable control technology
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
PR preheater rotary kiln
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PSH process stone handling
QL quick lime
RDL representative detection level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTR residual risk and technology review
SR straight rotary kiln
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEF toxicity equivalence factors
THC total hydrocarbons
tpy tons of pollutant per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
VK vertical kiln
VCS voluntary consensus standards

    Background information. On January 5, 2023 (88 FR 805), the EPA 
proposed revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP to complete the 
technology review, originally promulgated on July 24, 2020 (85 FR 
44960), by finalizing emission standards for 4 unregulated HAP. Based 
on the information available to EPA in 2023 at the time of the 
proposal, the EPA certified the rule as not having a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (No SISNOSE). 
Following the publication of the NPRM, EPA received additional data and 
feedback via public comments regarding the Agency's economic analysis, 
including information on the impacts to businesses that would be 
affected by the proposed rule. Our initial review of this updated 
information indicated that estimates of the control costs developed to 
support the proposal may have been understated and that there could 
accordingly be significant economic impacts to small businesses. On 
February 9, 2024 (89 FR 9088), the EPA published a supplemental 
proposal to address information received from public commenters and 
other sources of information, including the small business review 
panel. The supplemental proposal addressed regulatory flexibilities 
raised during outreach to the small businesses impacted by proposed 
revisions to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. In this action, we are 
finalizing decisions and revisions to the rule based on the public 
comments received regarding both the January 5, 2023, proposed rule and 
the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. We summarize some of the 
more significant comments we received regarding the proposed and 
supplemental rule amendments and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in the document titled 
``Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants 
Amendments'', included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

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 is the lime manufacturing source category and how does 
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source 
category in our January 5, 2023, and February 9, 2024, proposals?
    D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023, 
proposal?

[[Page 57739]]

III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments 
for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards
    B. Mercury Emission Standards
    C. Organic HAP Emission Standards
    D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. Severability of Standards
    G. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR Part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Source category and NESHAP                 NAICS code \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing.....................  32741, 33111, 3314, 327125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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 will also be 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/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.

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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
September 16, 2024. 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(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    For major sources, the Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(d)(2) 
provides that the technology-based NESHAP must reflect the maximum 
degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable after considering cost, 
energy requirements, and non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts. These standards are commonly referred to as MACT standards. 
CAA section 112(d)(3) also establishes a minimum control level for MACT 
standards, known as the MACT ``floor.'' The EPA must also consider 
control options that are more stringent than the floor, commonly 
referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' (BTF) standards. Costs may not be 
considered when setting the MACT floor and may only be considered when 
determining whether BTF standards are appropriate. The EPA considered 
BTF standards but did not elect to set BTF standards in this 
rulemaking.
    On January 5, 2023, the EPA proposed amendments to the Lime 
Manufacturing NESHAP to address unregulated emissions of HAP from the 
Lime Manufacturing source category. On February 9, 2024, the EPA 
supplemented its proposed amendments based on information received from 
commenters and other sources of information, including the small 
business review panel. In this document, the EPA proposed revisions to 
the proposed MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F for 
the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the Clean Air Act 
(CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). The EPA is finalizing these 
amendments to the NESHAP to ensure that all emissions of

[[Page 57740]]

HAP from sources in the source category are regulated.
    In setting standards for major source categories under CAA section 
112(d), the EPA has the obligation to address all HAP listed under CAA 
section 112(b).\1\ In the Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA 
decision issued on April 21, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA has an 
obligation to address unregulated emissions from a major source 
category when the Agency conducts the 8-year technology review required 
by CAA section 112(d)(6).\2\ These amendments address currently 
unregulated emissions of HAP from the lime manufacturing source 
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Desert Citizens against Pollution v. EPA, 699 F3d 524, 527 
(D.C. Cir. 2012) (``[W]e have read subparagraphs (1) and (3) of 40 
CFR 112(d) to require the regulation of all HAPs listed in 40 CFR 
112(b)(1)''), citing Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 633-34 
(D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. 
Cir. 2007).
    \2\ Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 
(D.C. Cir. 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Lime Manufacturing source category and how does the 
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5, 
2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities that use 
a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by calcination. The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes 34 
facilities.
    As promulgated in 2004, the current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 
regulates HAP emissions from all new and existing lime manufacturing 
plants that are major sources, co-located with major sources, or are 
part of major sources. A lime manufacturing plant is defined as any 
plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or 
other calcareous material by calcination. The NESHAP specifically 
excludes lime kilns that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from 
water softening processes as the feedstock. In addition, lime 
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 
factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Lime manufacturing operations 
at pulp and paper mills are subject to the NESHAP for combustion 
sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills.\3\ Lime 
manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants are not 
subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP because beet sugar lime kiln 
exhaust is typically routed through a series of gas washers to clean 
the exhaust gas prior to process use. Other lime manufacturing plants 
that are part of multiple operations, such as (but not limited to) 
those at steel mills and magnesia production facilities, are subject to 
the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 66 FR 3180, January 12, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP defines the affected source 
as each lime kiln and its associated cooler and each individual 
processed stone handling (PSH) operations system. The PSH operations 
system includes all equipment associated with PSH operations beginning 
at the process stone storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending 
where the process stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made 
process stone storage bins (but not open process stone storage piles), 
conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, 
screening operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors.
    The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP established particulate 
matter (PM) emission limits for lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations 
with stacks. The NESHAP also established opacity limits for kilns 
equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric filters (FF) 
and scrubber liquid flow limits for kilns equipped with wet scrubbers. 
Particulate matter serves as a surrogate for the non-mercury metal HAP. 
The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible emissions from most of the 
PSH operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for HAP 
metals.
    The PM emission limit for existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds 
PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air pollution 
control systems (e.g., dry scrubbers, fabric filters, baghouses) prior 
to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that have installed and are 
operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, must meet an emission 
limit of 0.60 lb/tsf. Kilns which meet the criteria for the 0.60 lb/tsf 
emission limit must continue to use a wet scrubber for PM emission 
control in order to be eligible to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at 
any time such a kiln switches to a dry control, it would become subject 
to the 0.12 lb/tsf emission limit, regardless of the type of control 
device used in the future. The PM emission limit for all new kilns and 
lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As a compliance option, these emission 
limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf limit) may be averaged across kilns 
and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. If the lime manufacturing 
plant has both new and existing kilns and coolers, then the emission 
limit would be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions 
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the 
individual kilns, except that no new kiln may exceed the PM emission 
level of 0.10 lb/tsf. Existing kilns that have installed and are 
operating wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, and that are required 
to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must meet that limit individually, 
and they may not be included in any averaging calculations.
    Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack are 
subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/
dscm) and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations that 
are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g PM/dscm limit 
but are not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from PSH 
operations are subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
    For each building enclosing any PSH operation, each of the affected 
PSH operations in the building must comply individually with the 
applicable PM and opacity emission limitations. Otherwise, there must 
be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the 
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent 
opacity. For each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an 
individual, enclosed processed stone storage bin, the opacity must not 
exceed 7 percent. For each set of multiple processed stone storage bins 
with combined stack emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm 
and 7 percent opacity. The current Lime Manufacturing NESHAP does not 
allow averaging of PSH operations.
    The 2020 amendments finalized the residual risk and technology 
review (RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP. The July 24, 
2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) found that the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 
provided an ample margin of safety to protect public health, that more 
stringent standards were not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect, and that there were no developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies that would warrant revisions to the 
standards. In addition, the 2020 RTR addressed periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) by removing any exemptions during SSM 
operations. Lastly, the 2020 amendments included provisions requiring 
electronic reporting.

C. What changes did we propose for the lime manufacturing source 
category in our February 9, 2024, proposal?

    On February 9, 2024, the EPA published a supplemental proposal in 
the Federal Register for the Lime

[[Page 57741]]

Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, in which the EPA 
proposed setting MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. 
Table 2 includes a summary of the MACT standards in the February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal.

Table 2--Summary of New and Existing Source Limits for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Included in the February 9,
                                           2024, Supplemental Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Lime  produced    New source       Existing
          Pollutant             Kiln type \1\         \2\             limit       source limit   Unit of measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Chloride............  SR.............  QL.............           0.015            0.52  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
                               SR.............  DL, DB.........             1.7             2.3  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
                               PR.............  QL.............           0.096           0.096  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
                               PR.............  DL, DB.........            0.39            0.39  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
                               VK.............  QL.............           0.021           0.021  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
                               VK.............  DL, DB.........            0.39            0.39  lb/ton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
Mercury......................  All............  All............              27              34  lb/MMton lime
                                                                                                  produced.
Organic HAP \3\..............  All............  All............             1.7             1.7  ppmvd at 7
                                                                                                  percent O2.
Dioxin/Furan.................  All............  All............           0.037           0.037  ng/dscm (TEQ)
                                                                                                  at 7 percent
                                                                                                  O2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).
\3\ Organic HAP include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p
  isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene.

D. What outreach did we conduct following the January 5, 2023, 
proposal?

    The EPA convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to 
obtain advice and recommendations from small entity representatives 
(SERs) that could be subject to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 
requirements. On August 3, 2023, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy 
Chairperson convened the Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the 
Director of the Sector Policies and Programs Division within the EPA's 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB, and the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
    Prior to convening the Panel, the EPA conducted outreach and 
solicited comments from the SERs. After the Panel was convened, the 
Panel provided additional information to the SERs and requested their 
input. The Panel's review identified several significant alternatives 
for consideration by the Administrator of the EPA which would 
accomplish the stated objectives of the CAA and would minimize economic 
impacts of the proposed rule on small entities.
    The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the 
consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an intra-quarry 
variability (IQV) for mercury, an aggregated organic HAP emission 
standard, retaining subcategorization for HCl numeric emissions limits, 
and work practice standards for D/F in place of a numeric limit. The 
EPA is including some of these flexibilities as a part of this final 
rule, including subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor 
for mercury, and an aggregated organic HAP emission limit. A copy of 
the full SBAR Panel Report is available in the docket of this 
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Lime Manufacturing source category?

    The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, 
and D/F within the Lime Manufacturing source category pursuant to the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). Additionally, we are 
finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative that allows 
lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance with the HCl 
and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each pollutant across 
existing kilns located at the same facility. This section provides a 
description of what we proposed and what we are finalizing, a summary 
of key comments and responses, and the EPA's rationale for the final 
decisions and amendments. For all comments not discussed in this 
preamble, comment summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the 
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed 
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for 
this action.

A. Hydrogen Chloride Emission Standards

1. What comments did we receive on the hydrogen chloride emission 
standards, and what are our responses?
    The following key comments were received regarding the HCl emission 
standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are 
included. All comments regarding HCl not discussed in this section, and 
the EPA's responses can be found in the document Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: While the EPA received comments in support of the 
subcategorization of HCl emission standards by kiln type and lime 
produced, the EPA also received opposing comments which state that the 
proposed subcategories by lime produced for HCl are unlawful because 
they are not based on differences in the class, type, or size of lime 
kilns. Commenter stated that the CAA section 112(d)(1) allows the EPA 
only to distinguish between ``classes, types, and sizes'' of sources in 
setting emission standards for a category.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The EPA determined 
that subcategorization by lime produced was warranted because the 
characteristics of DL and QL are different, where DL is made from 
naturally occurring limestone with a higher percentage of magnesium 
chloride, and QL has a lower chloride content. Given that HCl emissions 
from a lime manufacturing process are primarily driven by the heating 
of raw materials being processed in the lime kiln, the EPA finds that 
these differences in chloride content of the limestone being fed to a 
kiln as raw material warrant subcategorization. For these reasons the 
EPA has decided it is warranted to set subcategorizations by the type 
of lime produced (e.g., DL, QL).
    Comment: In the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, the EPA 
asked for public comment on the use of a health-based emission limit 
(HBEL), under CAA section 112(d)(4), when

[[Page 57742]]

determining the appropriate emission standards for HCl. The EPA 
received comments on the supplemental proposal both supporting setting 
an HBEL and against setting an HBEL for HCl. Commenters supporting an 
HBEL for HCl agreed with the EPA's assertion that HCl is a ``threshold 
pollutant'' and stated that current levels of HCl emissions from lime 
kilns are well below the threshold levels of concern for human 
receptors. In support, commenters supporting the use of an HBEL cited 
the 2020 RTR, where the EPA found that the risks of lime manufacturing 
under the current MACT standards were acceptable and that the current 
NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
Commenters opposed to the use of an HBEL for HCl stated that the EPA 
had not provided substantial evidence that HCl is not carcinogenic. 
Therefore, they stated, HCl cannot be a threshold pollutant, and the 
EPA cannot establish an HBEL for HCl.
    Response: The EPA acknowledges comments received on whether it is 
appropriate to consider HCl a threshold pollutant as defined under the 
CAA section 112(d)(4). The EPA is mindful that, in Sierra Club v. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the court 
determined that the rulemaking record did not show that HCl is not a 
carcinogen. 895 F.3d at 11. Based on the science and methods developed 
over the last 33 years, we believe the issue in setting a standard 
under CAA section 112(d)(4) is not necessarily whether HCl is a 
carcinogen but rather whether HCl has a threshold with an ample margin 
of safety. Thus, in the supplemental proposal, we stated that a 
chemical's mechanism of action (e.g., mutagenic, or non-mutagenic) is 
an important consideration when determining if a pollutant has a 
threshold.
    The EPA agrees with commenters' assertions \4\ that we cannot claim 
that mutagenicity is the sole test to determine whether a pollutant has 
a threshold, for cancer or other adverse health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Refer to document titled ``Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses for National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Amendments'', section 2, 
comment 1, which is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge industry comments in support of an HBEL and that 
current HCl emissions based upon the 2020 RTR are at levels that were 
acceptable with an ample margin of safety. However, considering the 
other comments received, we have decided not to promulgate an HBEL for 
HCl.
2. What did we propose and what are the final hydrogen chloride 
emission standards in this final rule?
    Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR indicated the 
presence of HCl, using EPA Methods 320 and 321. Additionally, the EPA 
evaluated the types of kilns and lime produced for which data was 
available. From our discussions with industry representatives, and our 
review of the HCl emissions data, we found that the configuration of 
the different types of kilns warranted subcategorization by kiln 
configuration. In the final rule amendments, we have subcategorized the 
HCl MACT standards by the following kiln types: straight rotary kiln 
(SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), and vertical kiln (VK). In addition, 
due to the different residence times of the raw materials within the 
heating zone of the kiln during the production of lime, the 3 types of 
lime produced also warranted subcategorization by lime type. We have 
also subcategorized the HCl MACT standards by the following types of 
lime produced: dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), and dead burned 
dolomitic lime (DB).
    To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the HCl 
MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent upper predictive limit (UPL). 
In some instances, subcategorization resulted in limited datasets, and 
a single dataset was used to calculate both existing and new source HCl 
MACT floor limits. In these instances, the existing source HCl MACT 
floor limit is the same as the new source HCl MACT floor limit. The HCl 
MACT floor limits were calculated based on units of pounds of pollutant 
per ton of lime produced (lb/ton lime produced). Table 3 summarizes the 
new and existing source emission limits for HCl in the final amendments 
to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP.

                 Table 3--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Hydrogen Chloride
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             New source limit   Existing source
               Kiln type \1\                       Lime produced \2\           (lb/ton lime      limit (lb/ton
                                                                                produced)        lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SR.........................................  QL...........................              0.015               0.52
SR.........................................  DL, DB.......................                1.7                2.3
PR.........................................  QL...........................              0.096              0.096
PR.........................................  DL, DB.......................               0.39               0.39
VK.........................................  QL...........................              0.021              0.021
VK.........................................  DL, DB.......................               0.39               0.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

B. Mercury Emission Standards

1. What comments did we receive on the mercury emission standards, and 
what are our responses?
    The following key comments were received regarding the mercury 
emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and 
February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each 
comment are included. For all comments regarding mercury not discussed 
in this section, and the EPA's responses can be found in the document 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime 
Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: Commenters supported the use of an intra-quarry 
variability factor (IQV) for mercury but commented that the February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal should be adjusted to allow sources more 
flexibility in meeting the mercury standards. In a separate comment, a 
commenter suggested that the EPA should collect additional data to 
support variability in the quarry data.
    Response: The final rule includes an IQV factor based on our 
statistical analysis of the quarry data provided by

[[Page 57743]]

National Lime Association (NLA) for the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont 
Eden lime manufacturing facilities. Case law on the use of an IQV 
factor in a rule requires the EPA to only consider quarry data 
representing the facilities that are in the MACT floor pool (``best 
performers''). The MACT floor pool in the lime source category 
consisted of two facilities: the Carmeuse Maysville and Graymont Eden 
lime manufacturing facilities. The quarry data from these 2 facilities 
were used to calculate the IQV factor in the February 9, 2024, 
supplemental proposal. No other quarry data were provided for the 
Carmeuse Maysville or Graymont Eden facilities during the public 
comment period, and, therefore, the quarry data of the Carmeuse 
Maysville and Graymont Eden facilities used to propose the IQV factor 
in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal was also used to set the 
IQV factor in this final rule.
2. What did we propose and what are the final mercury emission 
standards in this final rule?
    Emissions data collected in support of the 2020 RTR based on EPA 
Methods 29 and 30B indicated the presence of mercury in emissions from 
lime manufacturing facilities. In the February 9, 2024, proposal the 
EPA evaluated the use of an intra-quarry variability (IQV) factor to be 
applied in the mercury UPL calculations to account for the naturally 
occurring variability in mercury content of the raw materials. 
Consistent with the approach followed in the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and the Brick and 
Structural Clay Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJJ, the IQV 
factor accounts for this variability in the mercury content of the raw 
material over geological time. For the reasons explained in the 
supplemental proposal, we are using an IQV factor in calculating the 
final mercury MACT standards.
    As part of the evaluation of a mercury standard with the inclusion 
of an IQV factor, the EPA reevaluated whether a separate subcategory 
was necessary for kilns producing DB, as proposed in the January 5, 
2023, proposed amendments. To do this, we first developed standards 
based on no subcategorization and the application of an IQV factor. The 
result of this analysis was 27 lb Hg/MMton for new sources and 34 lb 
Hg/MMton for existing sources. The EPA determined, based on the 
available test data, that kilns producing DB would be able to comply 
with the existing source standard after the application of air 
pollution controls. This determination differs from the evaluation the 
EPA performed when setting subcategories for HCl, where the chloride 
content of the raw materials indicated significant differences in the 
HCl emissions from the lime kilns. For consideration of mercury 
subcategories, after the application of an IQV factor, the new and 
existing mercury emission limits for kilns producing DL and QL were 
found to be similar to the emission limits for kilns producing DB lime, 
and therefore no subcategorization was determined to be needed due to 
these negligible differences in emissions between the types of lime 
produced. No additional data were provided during the supplemental 
proposal that would suggest or warrant setting subcategories for 
mercury. Therefore, we determined in this final action to not create 
subcategories based on stone produced in setting mercury emission 
limits.
    To account for variability in the lime manufacturing operations and 
resulting emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 
mercury MACT floor limits based on the 99 percent UPL. The mercury MACT 
floor limits were calculated in units of pounds of pollutant per 
million tons of lime produced (lb/MMton lime produced). The final 
mercury emission limits for new and existing sources, including the IQV 
factor and without subcategories, are included in table 4.

                      Table 4--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            New source  limit   Existing source
                 Kiln type                           Lime produced            (lb/MMton lime    limit (lb/MMton
                                                                                produced)        lime produced)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................................  All..........................                 27                 34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Organic HAP Emission Standards

1. What comments did we receive on the organic HAP emission standards, 
and what are our responses?
    The following key comments were received regarding the THC and 
organic HAP emission standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, 
proposal, and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, respectively. 
The EPA responses to each comment are included. For all comments not 
discussed in this section, and the EPA's responses, can be found in the 
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Proposed 
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for 
this action.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the measured detection levels (MDL) 
used to calculate the aggregate organic HAP limit of the February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal should be summed on the same basis of 
moisture and oxygen. Commenters stated that the detection limit values 
do not appear to contain a correction for moisture, which can cause a 
significant difference in the final result. Similarly, as the final 
results are all to be corrected to a 7 percent oxygen concentration, an 
average oxygen concentration adjustment should also be made to the MDL 
values used for the floor calculation. Commenters argue that as this 
total result may contain some mix of detected and non-detected 
compounds, the MDL used for this standard setting should include this 
adjustment criteria.
    Response: The EPA agrees with the commenters that the 
representative detection level (RDL) for the EPA Method 320 results 
should be adjusted to dry (EPA Method 18 results are already dry), and 
that the final organic HAP RDL should be corrected to 7 percent oxygen 
prior to comparing to the UPL. We have revised the memo and the RDL 
accordingly as well as correcting the emission limits for the new 
value.
2. What did we propose and what are the final organic HAP emission 
standards in this final rule?
    The 2020 RTR emissions data included the results of testing 34 kiln 
exhaust stacks for the presence of total hydrocabons (THC) using EPA 
Method 25A. In addition, industry stakeholders provided emissions 
testing data that identified specific non-dioxin organic HAP. Based on 
an assessment of the available test data, the EPA identified 8 specific 
pollutants that were consistently emitted by the Lime Manufacturing 
source category. These include formaldehyde, acetaldehyde,

[[Page 57744]]

toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, 
ethyl benzene, and naphthalene. The EPA determined from the 2020 RTR 
emissions data that the emissions of these 8 pollutants were 
consistently being emitted by the source category. Although the data 
suggested that other organic HAP were being emitted, the data indicated 
that the 8 pollutants were consistently being emitted by all sources 
for which we had data. Furthermore, the EPA determined that controlling 
the emissions of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility 
would also control the facility's emissions of these other organic HAP. 
For these reasons, the EPA is finalizing the use of an aggregated 
emission limit for the 8 organic HAP identified in the data analysis as 
a surrogate for total organic HAP, which by controlling the emissions 
of these 8 pollutants from a lime manufacturing facility emission 
source (i.e., lime kiln) a facility will also control the facility's 
emissions of any other organic HAP from the same source. Refer to the 
memorandum ``Final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Floor 
Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry,'' which is 
available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).
    For each of the 8 organic HAP, the EPA calculated the emission 
limit value equivalent to 3 times the representative detection level 
(3xRDL) of the test method. The total of these was then compared to UPL 
calculations for the 8 pollutants. The new and existing UPLs were 
calculated based on a ranking of the average emission rates for the 8 
organic HAP. In all cases for both new and existing sources, the 3xRDL 
value, which represents the lowest value that can be accurately 
measured, was above the calculated UPL. We are accordingly finalizing 
the MACT floor at this level. The new and existing source organic HAP 
MACT floor limits are summarized in table 5.

                    Table 5--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Organic HAP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Existing source
                                                                             New source limit   limit \1\ (ppmvd
                 Kiln type                            Lime roduced           \1\ (ppmvd at 7    at 7 percent O2)
                                                                               percent O2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All........................................  All..........................                2.6                2.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New and existing source organic HAP emission limit defined as the sum of 8 organic HAP identified as:
  formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, benzene, xylenes (a mixture of o, m, and p isomers), styrene, ethyl
  benzene, and naphthalene.

D. Dioxin/Furan Emission Standards

1. What comments did we receive on the dioxin/furan emission standards, 
and what are our responses?
    The following key comments were received regarding the D/F emission 
standards as proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are 
included. For all comments regarding D/F not discussed in this section, 
and the EPA's responses, can be found in the document Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    Comment: Commenters indicated that in the absence of adequate data 
to set a numeric standard, the D.C. Circuit has upheld the EPA's 
promulgation of a non-numeric work practice standard. Chesapeake 
Climate Action Network v. EPA, 952 F.3d 310, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2020). 
Commenters stated that the EPA repeatedly and consistently informed 
them that the Agency was planning to issue a work practice for D/F 
because the D/F data showed that more than 55 percent of test results 
were non-detect. Commenters stated that they had multiple conversations 
with the EPA on the form a work practice could take, and that they 
submitted a suggested work practice (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015-0090). Commenters reiterated that due to extremely low D/F 
emissions, an appropriate work practice would require sources to 
properly operate the air pollution control devices already in place to 
control particulate matter.
    Response: As described in the memorandum ``Final Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 
Plants Industry,'' which is available in the docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015), half of the available test data 
was greater than the minimum detection limit, as determined according 
to the June 5, 2014, memorandum titled ``Determination of `non-detect' 
from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and EPA Method 23 (dioxin/furan) test 
data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors versus establishing 
work practice standards'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0117) 
(Johnson 2014). Further, the EPA had in its possession data showing 
that at least one kiln emitted D/F at a level above 3xRDL. These facts 
demonstrates that the requirements to promulgate work practice standard 
(i.e., that it is infeasible to measure emissions) has not been met. In 
accordance with CAA section 112(h), a work practice must be consistent 
with the requirements of setting emission standards detailed in section 
112(d) of the CAA, (i.e., it represents the average emissions 
performance for 12 percent of the best performing sources for existing 
sources, or the best performing source for new sources). No data was 
provided by the commenter's referenced material of a work practice 
which showed it represented the performance of the best performing 
sources; therefore, the EPA cannot determine if a work practice would 
be consistent with the requirements of section 112(d). As a general 
matter, lime production and kiln operations are not typical combustion 
sources where the majority of emissions are generated by the raw 
materials being heated in the kiln and for these reasons, the EPA did 
not set an alternative work practice standard in the final rule.
2. What did we propose and what are the final dioxin/furan emission 
standards in this final rule?
    The 2020 RTR emissions data indicated the presence of D/F using EPA 
Method 23. The EPA followed the guidance of the Johnson 2014 memorandum 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0117), in using detection limits as 
an indicator of the measurable presence of a given pollutant, 
specifically where multi-component samples, such as with D/F congeners, 
are the pollutants of concern. Additionally, the EPA used the 
procedures laid out in the December 13, 2011, memorandum titled ``Data 
and procedure for handling below detection level data in analyzing 
various pollutant emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions 
limits'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0119). Similar to

[[Page 57745]]

organic HAP, and in accordance with these guidance documents, the new 
and existing UPL for D/F were compared to the emission limit value 
determined to be equivalent to 3xRDL of the test method, and the 3xRDL 
value was found to be greater than the UPL. Therefore, the MACT floor 
limit for D/F was set based on the 3xRDL value of the test method. The 
D/F MACT floor limits for new and existing sources are summarized in 
table 6.

                   Table 6--Summary of Final New and Existing Source Limits for Dioxin/Furans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  New source                        Existing
          Kiln type             Lime produced        limit      Unit of measure   source limit   Unit of measure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All..........................  All............           0.037  ng/dscm (TEQ)             0.037  ng/dscm (TEQ)
                                                                 @7 percent O2.                   @7 percent O2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

1. What comments did we receive on the January 5, 2023, proposed rule 
and February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal, and what are our 
responses?
    The following key comments were received regarding other changes 
proposed in the January 5, 2023, proposal, and February 9, 2024, 
supplemental proposal. The EPA responses to each comment are included. 
For all comments not discussed in this section, and the EPA's 
responses, see the document Summary of Public Comments and Responses 
for Proposed Amendments to the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
    Comment: Commenters state that the EPA should allow for emissions 
averaging for organic HAP and for D/F. The commenters also suggest 
emissions averaging between subcategories, and between new and existing 
sources. Lastly, commenters stated that the requirement to submit an 
emission averaging plan for approval is unnecessary and unduly 
burdensome.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters that the suggested 
revisions to the proposed emissions averaging compliance option would 
be appropriate. The EPA has generally imposed limits on the scope and 
nature of emissions averaging programs to assure that such programs 
achieve at least equivalent reductions in emissions as the primary 
standards. These limits include: (1) no averaging between different 
pollutants; (2) no averaging between sources that are not part of the 
same affected facility; (3) no averaging between individual sources 
within a single major source if the individual sources are not subject 
to the same NESHAP; and (4) no averaging between existing sources and 
new sources. The emissions averaging allowed under the emissions 
averaging compliance option in this final action fully satisfies each 
of these criteria. The EPA has included emissions averaging provisions 
for single kilns producing multiple types of lime as product.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the emissions averaging 
should include organic HAP and D/F. The organic HAP and D/F emission 
limits include multiple pollutants and congeners, and facilities will 
emit various combinations of these groups of pollutants. We find that 
emissions averaging is not appropriate for these groupings of 
pollutants in this source category. Consistent with emissions averaging 
programs in other source categories, the EPA is finalizing the 
emissions averaging compliance option as proposed, with restrictions 
against averaging between new and existing sources, or between 
subcategories. Although the requirement to submit an emissions 
averaging plan for approval is being finalized as proposed, the EPA has 
adjusted the deadline for submitting the emissions averaging plan from 
180 days to 60 days before the compliance demonstration making the 
emissions averaging plan less burdensome.
2. What changes are included in this final rule?
    We are finalizing an emissions averaging compliance alternative 
that allows lime manufacturing facilities to demonstrate compliance 
with the HCl and mercury standards by averaging emissions of each 
pollutant across existing kilns located at the same facility. Under 
these emissions averaging compliance alternative, a facility with more 
than one existing kiln may average emissions across the kilns located 
at the facility provided that the overall average emissions from the 
kilns demonstrating compliance under this provision do not exceed the 
limits included in table 7.

                     Table 7--Emissions Averaging Compliance Alternative for HCl and Mercury
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Emissions
                                                                                averaging
            Pollutant                 Kiln type \1\      Lime produced \2\     alternative     Unit of measure
                                                                                  limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Chloride................  SR.................  DL, DB.............             2.1  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
                                   SR.................  QL.................            0.47  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
                                   PR.................  DL, DB.............            0.36  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
                                   PR.................  QL.................           0.087  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
                                   VK.................  DL, DB.............            0.36  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
                                   VK.................  QL.................           0.019  lb/ton lime
                                                                                              produced.
Mercury..........................  All................  All................              31  lb/MMton lime
                                                                                              produced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK).
\2\ Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB).

    The emission limits included in table 7 reflect a 10 percent 
adjustment factor to the MACT floor standard. We expect that these 
emission limits would result in reductions of HCL and mercury greater 
than those achieved by application of the MACT floor on a unit-by-unit 
basis.
    The emissions averaging program has restrictions. First, emissions 
averaging is not allowed between different pollutants. Second, 
emissions averaging

[[Page 57746]]

is only permissible among individual existing affected units at a 
single lime manufacturing plant. Third, emissions averaging is only 
permitted among kilns in the same subcategory. Lastly, new affected 
sources cannot use emissions averaging for compliance purposes.
    We are finalizing a requirement for each facility intending to use 
this emissions averaging program to develop an emissions averaging plan 
that identifies: (1) all units in the averaging group; (2) the control 
technology installed; (3) the process parameter(s) that will be 
monitored; (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention 
measure to be used; (5) the test plan for measuring the HAP being 
averaged; and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for each 
control device.

F. Severability of Standards

    This final rule includes MACT standards promulgated under CAA 
section 112(d)(2)-(3). We intend each separate portion of this rule to 
operate independently of and to be severable from the rest of the rule. 
Each set of standards rests on stand-alone scientific determinations 
that do not rely on judgments made in other portions of the rule. The 
EPA also finds that the implementation of each set of CAA 112(d)(2)-(3) 
MACT standards, including monitoring, record keeping, and reporting 
requirements, is independent. Thus, each aspect of the EPA's overall 
approach to this source category could be implemented even in the 
absence of any one or more of the other elements included in this final 
rule. Accordingly, the EPA finds that each set of standards in this 
final rule is severable from and can operate independently of each 
other set of standards.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on July 16, 2024. The compliance date for existing 
sources is July 16, 2027. New sources must comply with all of the 
standards immediately upon the effective date of the standard, July 16, 
2024, or upon startup, whichever is later.

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

    The following analyses of costs and benefits, and environmental, 
economic, and environmental justice impacts are presented for the 
purpose of providing the public with an understanding of the potential 
consequences of this final action. The EPA's obligation to conduct an 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits under Executive Order 
12866 is distinct from its obligation in setting standards under CAA 
section 112 to take costs into account.

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Currently, 34 major sources subject to the Lime Manufacturing 
NESHAP are operating in the United States. An affected source under the 
NESHAP is a lime manufacturing plant that is a major source, or that is 
located at, or is a part of, a major source of HAP emissions, unless 
the lime manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp 
mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar manufacturing plant, or only 
processes sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening 
processes. A lime manufacturing plant is an establishment engaged in 
the manufacture of lime products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with 
magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, 
dolomite, shells, or other calcareous substances. A major source of HAP 
is a plant site that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP 
at a rate of 10 tons or more, or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 
or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
    The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP applies to each existing or new lime 
kiln and their associated cooler(s). In addition, the NESHAP applies to 
each PSH operation located at the plant. This includes storage bins, 
conveying systems and transfer points, bulk loading and unloading 
operations, screening operations, surge bins, and bucket elevators.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    This action finalizes standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and 
D/F that will limit emissions and require, in some cases, the 
installation of additional controls at lime manufacturing plants at 
major sources. Compliance with the emission standards set in this final 
rule will result in a combined reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of 
HAP per year. Specifically, the emission standards of this action will 
reduce HCl emissions by 884 tons per year (tpy). The emission standards 
of this action will reduce mercury emissions by 457 lbs per year (0.23 
tpy). The emission standards of this action will reduce organic HAP 
emissions by 8 tpy. Finally, the emission standards of this action will 
reduce D/F emissions by 9.5 x 10-5 lbs per year (4.7 x 10-8 tpy).
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (e.g., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). These secondary impacts 
typically include the energy needed to power the control devices, solid 
waste and wastewater generated from operation of the control devices, 
and air emissions that result from the generation of electricity used 
to operate the control devices. Secondary emissions typically include 
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate 
matter (PM), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns 
(PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon dioxide 
(CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide 
(N2O). However, the extent of the increase in these 
pollutants is highly dependent on the type of fuel used in the EGUs. 
The EPA does not have any information that suggests that facilities in 
the lime manufacturing source category generate their own electricity 
and did not receive any new information about the source of electricity 
for these facilities from the request for comments in the supplemental 
proposal. Refer to the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final 
Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' in the docket for a detailed 
discussion of the analyses performed on potential secondary impacts and 
estimates of the total energy, solid waste, and wastewater impacts 
associated with the estimated controls required for compliance with the 
final standards (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    This action finalizes emission limits for new and existing sources 
in the Lime Manufacturing source category. Although the action contains 
requirements for new sources and we requested comment on new 
construction or plans for expanding facilities/operations; we are not 
aware of any new sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 
years, and, consequently, we did not estimate any cost impacts for new 
sources. We lack the data and modeling necessary to predict changes in 
the demand for lime manufacturing facilities due to other rulemakings 
or funded construction projects from the Inflation Reduction Act or 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We estimate the total capital 
investment for existing sources in the Lime Manufacturing source 
category to be $485,000,000 and the total annualized cost of the final 
rule to be $166,000,000 per year. The annual costs

[[Page 57747]]

are expected to be based on operation and maintenance of the added 
control systems. A memorandum titled ``Final Cost Impacts for the Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Industry'' includes details of our cost assessment 
and is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    For this action, the EPA estimated the cost of installing 
additional air pollution control devices in order to comply with the 
February 9, 2024, proposed emission limits. This includes both the 
capital costs of the initial installation and subsequent operation and 
maintenance costs. The EPA lacks the information necessary to 
independently assess the downtime loss of production due to capital 
improvements or deferred maintenance that would be associated with 
these controls for each affected facility. The assumed equipment life 
of the recommended controls for this NESHAP is twenty years. This 
default equipment life is based on information in the EPA Air Pollution 
Control Cost Manual. To assess the potential economic impacts, the 
expected annual cost was compared to the total sales revenue for the 
ultimate owners of affected facilities. For this rule, the expected 
annual cost is $4,900,0000 (on average) for each facility, with an 
estimated nationwide annual cost of $166,000,000 per year in 
perpetuity. The 34 affected facilities are owned by 11 parent 
companies, and the total costs associated with the final amendments to 
the rule are expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales 
revenue per ultimate owner.
    Because the total costs associated with the proposed amendments are 
expected to be greater than 1 percent of annual sales revenue per owner 
in the Lime Manufacturing source category, there are economic impacts 
from these proposed amendments on the 3 affected facilities that are 
owned by 2 small entities. Refer to section IV.C. of this preamble for 
a detailed description of the small business outreach and regulatory 
flexibility analysis performed in conjunction with this rule.
    The EPA predicts that the affected sources in the Lime 
Manufacturing source category will be able to pass on some of their 
compliance costs to their customers. International trade of lime 
products is limited and there are no readily available cost-competitive 
substitutes for lime.
    The economic analysis indicates that, under the final amendments on 
an annual basis, domestic lime production is estimated to decline by 
212,000 metric tons (1.4 percent), imports are estimated to increase by 
37,000 metric tons (11.5 percent), and exports are estimated to decline 
by 22,000 metric tons (6.6 percent), resulting in an estimated net 
decline in the quantity of lime distributed to the domestic market by 
about 164,000 metric tons (1.0 percent). While the compliance costs are 
expected to have effects on the lime market, the impact estimates 
suggest that affected sources are not likely to face severe competition 
from foreign lime producers or from substitutes for their product. The 
magnitude of the impact estimates do not suggest that the compliance 
costs are likely to induce any changes to the market structure for lime 
through changes such as diversification or consolidation.
    Information on our cost impact estimates on the sources in the Lime 
Manufacturing source category is available in the document titled 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing 
Plants,'' which is included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

E. What are the benefits?

    The EPA did not monetize the benefits from the estimated emission 
reductions of HAP associated with this final action. The EPA currently 
does not have sufficient methods to monetize benefits associated with 
HAP reductions, and risk reductions for this rulemaking. However, we 
estimate that the final rule amendments would reduce emissions by 893 
tons per year and thus lower risk of serious adverse health effects 
(such as cancer and neurodevelopmental toxicity) in communities near 
lime manufacturing plants. These unquantified benefits would be 
particularly impactful to pregnant women, infants and children in these 
communities, since these life stages are especially susceptible to 
exposures to chemicals such as carcinogens and neurodevelopmental 
toxicants. It is reasonable to expect that the emissions reductions 
from this rule would reduce the incidence of adverse effects among the 
exposed populations. Monetization of the benefits of reductions in 
cancer incidences requires several important inputs, including central 
estimates of cancer risks, estimates of exposure to carcinogenic HAP, 
and estimates of the value of an avoided case of cancer (fatal and non-
fatal). We expect these emissions reductions to have beneficial effects 
on air quality and public health for populations exposed to emissions 
from lime manufacturing facilities. Due to methodology and data 
limitations, we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of 
reductions in HAP in this analysis. We have determined that 
quantification of those benefits cannot be accomplished for this final 
rule. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of the health 
effects associated with reductions in HAP emitted from sources subject 
to control under the final action.
    Information on our qualitative discussion of the health effects 
associated with HAP emitted from sources in the Lime Manufacturing 
source category is available in the document titled ``Regulatory Impact 
Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' which is 
included in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015).

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    For purposes of analyzing regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon 
its June 2016 ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice 
in Regulatory Analysis,'' which provides recommendations that encourage 
analysts to conduct the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing 
that data limitations, time, resource constraints, and analytical 
challenges will vary by media and circumstance. The technical guidance 
states that a regulatory action may involve potential EJ concerns if it 
could: (1) Create new disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ 
concerns; (2) exacerbate existing disproportionate impacts on 
communities with EJ concerns; or (3) present opportunities to address 
existing disproportionate impacts on communities with EJ concerns 
through this action under development.
    The EPA's EJ technical guidance states that ``[t]he analysis of 
potential EJ concerns for regulatory actions should address 3 
questions: (A) Are there potential EJ concerns associated with 
environmental stressors affected by the regulatory action for 
population groups of concern in the baseline? (B) Are there potential 
EJ concerns associated with environmental stressors affected by the 
regulatory action for population groups of concern for the regulatory 
option(s) under consideration? (C) For the regulatory option(s) under 
consideration, are potential EJ concerns

[[Page 57748]]

created or mitigated compared to the baseline?'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in 
Regulatory Analysis,'' U.S. EPA, June 2016. Quote is from Section 
3--Key Analytic Considerations, page 11. https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The environmental justice analysis is presented for the purpose of 
providing the public with as full as possible an understanding of the 
potential impacts of this final action. The EPA notes that analysis of 
such impacts is distinct from the determinations finalized in this 
action under CAA section 112, which are based solely on the statutory 
factors the EPA is required to consider under those sections.
    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated 
with lime manufacturing facilities, we performed a proximity 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of individual demographic 
groups of the populations living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) and 50 km 
(~31 miles) of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this 
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups. In 
this preamble, we focus on the proximity results for the populations 
living within 5 km (~3.1 miles) of the facilities. The results of this 
proximity analysis for populations living within 50 km are included in 
the technical document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for 
Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing Facilities, which is 
available in the docket for this action.
    The results (see table 8) show that for populations within 5 km of 
the 34 lime manufacturing facilities, the following demographic groups 
were above the national average: Hispanic/Latino (37 percent versus 19 
percent nationally), linguistically isolated households (21 percent 
versus 5 percent nationally), people living below the poverty level (27 
percent versus 13 percent nationally), and people without a high school 
diploma (17 percent versus 12 percent nationally). A summary of the 
proximity demographic assessment performed for the major source lime 
manufacturing facilities is included as table 8. The methodology and 
the results of the demographic analysis are presented in the report 
Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime 
Manufacturing Facilities, available in this docket for this action 
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

 Table 8--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Major Source Lime
                        Manufacturing Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Population within
        Demographic group             Nationwide      5 km of facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................  328,016,242.......  473,343
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Race and Ethnicity by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...........................  60 percent........  50 percent.
Black...........................  12 percent........  9 percent.
American Indian and Alaska        0.7 percent.......  0.9 percent.
 Native.
Hispanic or Latino (includes      19 percent........  37 percent.
 white and nonwhite).
Other and Multiracial...........  8 percent.........  3 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Income by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............  13 percent........  27 percent.
Above Poverty Level.............  87 percent........  73 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Education by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High        12 percent........  17 percent.
 School Diploma.
Over 25 and with a High School    88 percent........  83 percent.
 Diploma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Linguistically Isolated by Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........  5 percent.........  21 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on
  the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-year block group
  averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on
  different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km
  of all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block
  populations.
 Minority population is the total population minus the white
  population.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category
  is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A
  person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above:
  White, Black, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/
  Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as
  Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person
  may have also identified as in the Census.

    The human health risk estimated for this source category for the 
July 24, 2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was determined to be acceptable, and 
the standards were determined to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk 
was 1-in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in-1 million for allowable 
emissions) and the noncancer hazard indices for chronic exposure were 
well below 1 (0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for allowable emissions). 
The noncancer hazard quotient for acute exposure was 0.6, also below 1. 
The final revisions to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will reduce emissions 
by 893 tons of HAP per year, and therefore, further improve human 
health exposures for the populations and individuals most exposed to 
this pollution, including communities with environmental justice 
concerns. The proposed changes will have beneficial effects on air 
quality and public health for populations exposed to

[[Page 57749]]

emissions from lime manufacturing facilities.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    In the July 24, 2020, final Lime Manufacturing NESHAP RTR (85 FR 
44960), the EPA conducted a residual risk assessment and determined 
that risk from the Lime Manufacturing source category was acceptable, 
and the standards provided an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health. This action finalizes first-time emissions standards for HCl, 
mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. Specifically, compliance with the 
emission standards set in this final rule will result in a combined 
reduction of total HAP of 893 tons of HAP per year.
    This action's health and risk assessments are protective of the 
most vulnerable populations, including children, due to how we 
determine exposure and through the health benchmarks that we use. 
Specifically, the risk assessments we perform assume a lifetime of 
exposure, in which populations are conservatively presumed to be 
exposed to airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 
hours per day for a 70-year lifetime, including childhood. With regards 
to children's potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer 
toxicants, the assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard 
identification and dose-response values that have been developed to be 
protective for all subgroups of the general population, including 
children. For example, mercury exposure is of particular importance to 
children, infants, and the developing fetus given the developmental 
neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children may be more vulnerable 
to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults because of the relatively 
smaller diameter of their airways. Children may also be more vulnerable 
to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kg and 
failure to evacuate an area promptly when exposed. For more information 
on the risk assessment methods, see the risk report for the 2020 RTR 
rule, which is available in the docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0015).

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

    This final action is significant under E.O. 12866 Section 3(f)(1) 
as amended by E.O. 14094. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Documentation of any changes made in 
response to the Executive Order 12866 review is available in the 
docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential impacts 
associated with this action. This analysis is included in the document 
titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants'' and is also available in the docket (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.11. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The final rule ICR describes changes to the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP 
associated with the incorporation of reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements associated with the new and existing source MACT standards 
for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime 
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or 
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime 
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, 
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes 
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: 34.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item.
    Total estimated burden: 8,392 hours (per year). Burden is defined 
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $1,190,000 (per year), includes $335,000 
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to sections 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the February 9, 
2024, supplemental proposal and convened a Small Business Advocacy 
Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and recommendations from small 
entity representatives that potentially would be subject to the rule's 
requirements. Summaries of the IRFA and Panel recommendations are 
presented in the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal (89 FR 9088).
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA 
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the 
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for review in the 
memorandum ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants,'' which is included in the docket for this 
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015) and is summarized here.
1. Statement of Need and Rule Objectives
    This industry is regulated by the EPA because pollutants emitted 
from lime manufacturing facilities are considered to cause or 
contribute significantly to air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health. This action establishes 
standards for currently unregulated pollutants: hydrogen chloride, 
mercury, organic HAP, and dioxin/furans. The decision in Louisiana 
Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) 
concluded that the EPA is required to address regulatory gaps (i.e., 
``gap-filling'') when conducting NESHAP reviews.

[[Page 57750]]

2. Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) and EPA Response
    While the EPA did not receive any comments specifically in response 
to the IRFA, we did receive comments from the Office of Advocacy within 
the Small Business Administration (SBA), and a summary of the major 
comments and our responses is provided in the next section. The issues 
raised by SBA were also reflected in comments from small businesses and 
organizations with small business interests.
3. SBA Office of Advocacy Comments and EPA Response
    The SBA's Office of Advocacy (hereafter referred to as 
``Advocacy'') provided substantive comments on the January 5, 2023, 
Proposal and the February 9, 2024, supplemental proposal. Advocacy 
stated that while the amendments contain many positive recommendations 
from the 2023 SBAR panel conducted on EPA's proposed changes to the 
NESHAP for lime manufacturing plants, they recommend additional 
refinements.
    In response to Advocacy's comments, the EPA recognizes the impacts 
the emission standards will have on the industry and specifically to 
small businesses. The EPA has incorporated regulatory flexibilities 
into the final rule where warranted to address the impacts on small 
businesses in the source category. These flexibilities include 
subcategorization of HCl emission limits, an IQV factor for mercury, 
and an aggregated organic HAP emission limit. The EPA has worked with 
the lime manufacturing industry, and with the small businesses within 
the source category, to ensure the emission standards being finalized 
are accurate and representative of lime manufacturing operations. We 
disagree with Advocacy about setting health-based standards for HCl for 
reasons discussed in section III.A of this preamble. Additionally, we 
disagree with Advocacy that the EPA does not have enough information to 
set D/F emission standards, as discussed in section III.D of this 
preamble.
    More detailed responses to Advocacy's comments can be found in the 
document Summary of Public Comments and Responses for National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants 
Amendments, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
4. Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Final Rule 
Applies
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small 
entities, a small entity is defined as a small business in the lime 
manufacturing industry whose parent company has revenues or numbers of 
employees below the SBA Size Standards for the relevant NAICS code. A 
complete list of those NAICS codes and SBA Size Standards is available 
in section 6 of the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' available in the docket 
for this rulemaking. The EPA estimates there are 34 affected facilities 
owned by 11 different parent companies. Two of the ultimate parent 
companies owning affected facilities are small entities. These small 
entities operate three facilities with a total of five kilns. They 
represent less than 5 percent of the total production capacity of the 
source category.
5. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements 
of the Final Rule
    Under the rule requirements, small entities will be required to 
comply with the four emission standards in the final rule, which may 
require the use of one or more control devices new to the small entity. 
Small entities will also need to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission standards through the use of periodic performance testing and 
parametric monitoring. See section 6 of the document titled 
``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Amendments to the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing 
Plants,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking, for more 
information on the characterization of the impacts under the rule.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize Economic Impact to Small Entities
a. Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA convened a Small 
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and 
recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that 
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. On July 21, 
2023, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened the Panel. 
In light of the SERs' feedback and comments, the Panel considered the 
regulatory flexibility issues and elements of an IRFA specified by RFA/
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act and developed 
the findings and discussion summarized in the SBAR Panel Report. The 
report was finalized on November 6, 2023, and transmitted to the EPA 
Administrator for consideration. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report 
is available in the rulemaking docket.
b. Alternatives Considered
    The SBAR Panel recommended several flexibilities including the 
consideration of health-based standards for HCl, an IQV for mercury, an 
aggregated organic HAP emission standard, retaining subcategorization 
for HCl numeric emissions limits, and work practice standards for D/F 
in a place of a numeric limit. The EPA included some of these 
flexibilities as a part of this final rule.
    As discussed in section III.A of this preamble, the EPA is not 
considering a health-based standard for HCl. The final rule does 
include an IQV factor for mercury and an aggregate organic HAP emission 
limit, as discussed in sections III.B and III.C of this preamble. 
However, as discussed in section III.D of this preamble, the EPA did 
not receive data supporting a work practice standard for D/F, and, 
therefore, the EPA is not finalizing a work practice standard for D/F 
in this action.
    In addition, the EPA is preparing a Small Entity Compliance Guide 
to help small entities comply with this rule. The Small Entity 
Compliance Guide will be available on the same date as the date of 
publication of the final rule or as soon as possible after that date 
and will be available on the rule web page at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $183 million in 2023$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted 
for inflation using the gross domestic product (GDP) implicit price 
deflator) or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for the 
private sector in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared a 
written statement required under section 202 of UMRA. The statement is 
included in the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 
Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' included in the docket for 
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-

[[Page 57751]]

OAR-2017-0015), and briefly summarized here.
    The EPA has concluded that this final rule may require expenditures 
of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such 
expenditures may include capital costs of purchasing and installing 
control technologies to meet the amended standards under the final 
rule. See section 6 of the document titled ``Regulatory Impact Analysis 
for the Final Amendments to the National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants,'' available in the 
docket for this rulemaking, for more information on the 
characterization of the economic impacts, including capital cost 
inputs, under the rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing 
facilities owned or operated by Indian Tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 
Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. For example, mercury exposure is 
of particular importance to children, infants, and the developing fetus 
given the developmental neurotoxicity of mercury. In addition, children 
may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents, such as HCl, than adults 
because of the relatively smaller diameter of their airways. Children 
may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute 
ventilation per kg and failure to evacuate an area promptly when 
exposed. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental health or 
safety effects of the air emissions from lime manufacturing on 
children.
    The results of this evaluation are contained in the docket of this 
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015).
    This action is preferred over other regulatory options analyzed 
because this action finalizes emission standards for 4 previously 
unregulated pollutants; therefore, the rule includes health benefits to 
children by reducing the level of HAP emissions emitted from the lime 
manufacturing process.
    Furthermore, EPA's Policy on Children's Health also applies to this 
action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available under 
``What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?'' in 
this preamble.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. In this final action, the EPA is 
setting emission standards for 4 previously unregulated pollutants. 
This does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP through the 
Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by 
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a 
review of voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and 
accessed and searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA 
Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. During the EPA's VCS search, if 
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical 
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's 
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed 
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential 
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This 
review requires significant method validation data that meet the 
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or 
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the 
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of 
impracticality when additional information is available for any 
particular VCS.
    Two VCS were identified as acceptable alternatives to the EPA test 
methods for this final rule. The VCS ASTM D6784-16, ``Standard Test 
Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 
Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),'' 
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury 
only) as a method for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative 
to EPA Method 320 with certain conditions. Detailed information on the 
VCS search and determination can be found in the memorandum, 
``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Technology Review'', 
which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0015).
    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12 
(Reapproved 2020), ``Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous 
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform Infrared 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 
(referenced in NESHAP subparts F and U) with caveats requiring 
inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as mandatory. This ASTM 
procedure uses an extractive sampling system that routes stationary 
source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and 
quantification of gaseous compounds. We note that we proposed VCS ASTM 
D6348-12e1 as an alternative to EPA Method 320; however, since 
proposal, a newer version of the method (VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 
2020)) is now available, and we have determined it to be equivalent to 
EPA Method 320 with caveats. The VCS ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) 
method is an extractive FTIR Spectroscopy-based field test method and 
is used to quantify gas phase concentrations of multiple target 
compounds in emission streams from stationary sources. When using ASTM 
D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), the following conditions must be met: (1) 
Annexes Al through A8 to ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) are mandatory; 
and (2) in ASTM D6348-12

[[Page 57752]]

(Reapproved 2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) 
R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5). For the 
test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. 
If the %R value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the 
test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be 
repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical 
procedure should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each 
compound must be reported in the test report, and all field 
measurements must be corrected with the calculated %R value for that 
compound by using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.

    The EPA is incorporating by reference the VCS ASTM D6784-16), 
``Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and 
Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources 
(Ontario Hydro Method),'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 
(portion for mercury only) as a method for measuring elemental, 
oxidized, particle-bound, and total mercury concentrations ranging from 
approximately 0.5 to 100 micrograms per normal cubic meter. This test 
method describes equipment and procedures for obtaining samples from 
effluent ducts and stacks, equipment and procedures for laboratory 
analysis, and procedures for calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784-16 
allows for additional flexibility in the sampling and analytical 
procedures for the earlier version of the same standard VCS ASTM D6784-
02 (Reapproved 2008). ASTM D6784-16 allows for the use of either an EPA 
Method 17 sampling configuration with a fixed (single) point where the 
flue gas is not stratified, or an EPA Method 5 sampling configuration 
with a multi-point traverse. These methods are available at ASTM 
International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 
https://www.astm.org/. The standards are available to everyone at a 
cost determined by ASTM. The costs of obtaining these methods are not a 
significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available.
    Additionally, the EPA is incorporating by reference ``Recommended 
Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments 
of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds'' 
(EPA/100/R-10/005 December 2010), which is the source of the toxicity 
equivalence factors (TEF) for dioxins and furans used in calculating 
the toxic equivalence quotient of the proposed dioxin and furan 
standard. This document describes the EPA's updated approach for 
evaluating the human health risks from exposures to environmental media 
containing dioxin-like compounds. The EPA recommends that the TEF 
methodology, a component mixture method, be used to evaluate human 
health risks posed by these mixtures, using TCDD as the index chemical. 
The EPA recommends the use of the consensus TEF values for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and dioxin-like compounds published in 2005 
by the World Health Organization. This is the international method of 
expressing toxicity equivalents for dioxins/furans where a recommended 
TEF is multiplied by each individual compound's (congener) emission 
concentration to calculate the 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 
toxicity equivalents (TEQ). To estimate risk associated with the 
mixture, the dose-response function for the index chemical is evaluated 
at this sum, which is an estimate of the total index chemical 
equivalent dose for the mixture components being considered. The 
document is available on the EPA website, https://www.epa.gov/risk/documents-recommended-toxicity-equivalency-factors-human-health-risk-assessments-dioxin-and.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and 
Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All

    The EPA anticipates that the human health or environmental 
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the 
potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on communities with environmental justice (EJ) 
concerns. The assessment of populations in close proximity of lime 
manufacturing facilities shows Hispanic and linguistically isolated 
groups are higher than the national average (see section IV.F. of the 
preamble). The higher percentages are driven by 4 of the 34 facilities 
in the source category.
    The EPA anticipates this action is likely to reduce existing 
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns. 
The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and 
D/F. The EPA expects that the 4 facilities would have to implement 
control measures to reduce emissions to comply with the MACT standards 
and that HAP exposures for the people living near these facilities 
(including those communities with EJ concerns) would decrease.
    The information supporting this Executive order review is contained 
in section IV.F of the preamble.

K. 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 meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Amend Sec.  63.14 by revising paragraphs (i)(89) and (105) and 
(o)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (89) ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 
2012, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.109(a); 63.365(b); 63.509(a); 
63.7322(d), (e), and (g); 63.7825(g) and (h); table 5 to subpart AAAAA.
* * * * *
    (105) ASTM D6784-16, Standard Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 
Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 
Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), Approved March 1, 2016; IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1450(d); 63.7322(c); table 5 to subpart 
UUUUU; appendix A

[[Page 57753]]

to subpart UUUUU; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; 63.9621.
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (1) EPA/100/R-10/005, Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors 
(TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds, December 2010; 
IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1450(f); 63.1459; table 2 to subpart 
QQQ; table 1 to subpart AAAAA. (Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/tefs-for-dioxin-epa-00-r-10-005-final.pdf.)
* * * * *

Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants

0
3. Amend Sec.  63.7082 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (j) as paragraphs (d) through 
(k);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.7082  What part of my plant does this subpart cover?

* * * * *
    (b) For purposes of complying with the PM emissions limitations of 
this subpart, a new lime kiln is a lime kiln, and (if applicable) its 
associated lime cooler, for which construction or reconstruction began 
after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.  
63.7081 at the time you began construction or reconstruction.
    (c) For the purposes of complying with the HCl, mercury, organic 
HAP, and D/F emissions limitations of this subpart, a new lime kiln is 
a lime kiln (only) for which construction or reconstruction began after 
January 5, 2023, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.7081 
at the time you began construction or reconstruction.
* * * * *
    (f) An existing lime kiln is any lime kiln, and (when complying 
with PM emissions limitations) its associated lime cooler, that does 
not meet the definition of a new kiln of paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  63.7083 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (e) as paragraphs (e) through 
(g); and
0
c. Adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) and paragraph (h).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7083  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new affected source, you must comply with this 
subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004, 
you must comply with the PM emission limitations no later than January 
5, 2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests 
no later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004, 
then you must comply with the PM emission limitations for new affected 
sources upon startup of your affected source and you must have 
completed all applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after 
startup, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with 
the applicable PM emission limitations for the existing affected 
source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no 
later than January 5, 2007, except as noted in paragraphs (g)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (c) If you start up your affected source after July 16, 2024, then 
you must comply with all emission limitations for new affected sources 
upon startup of your affected source and you must have completed all 
applicable performance tests no later than 180 days after startup, 
except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (d) If you have an existing affected source you must comply with 
all applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, 
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later 
than July 16, 2027, except as noted in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (h)(1) If your affected source commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before January 5, 2023, then the compliance date 
for HCl, mercury, total organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations is 
July 16, 2027.
    (2) If your affected source commenced construction or 
reconstruction after July 16, 2024, then the compliance date for HCl, 
mercury, total organic HAP, and D/F emissions limitations is July 16, 
2024, or the date of initial startup, whichever is later.

0
5. Amend Sec.  63.7090 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7090  What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (d) For those LMP using emissions averaging for either HCl emission 
limits or mercury emission limits in accordance with the procedures in 
Sec.  63.7114(b) and (c), must not exceed the applicable emission 
limits in table 9 to this subpart.

0
6. Amend Sec.  63.7100 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7100  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 
On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified 
in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission limitations (including operating limits) at all times. You may 
operate outside of the established operating parameter limit(s) during 
performance tests in order to establish new operating limits.
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  63.7110 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7110  By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

* * * * *
    (f) If your affected source commenced construction or 
reconstruction before July 16, 2024, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the emission limitation in in this subpart no later 
than July 16, 2027, or within 180 calendar days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 
63.7114.

0
8. Amend Sec.  63.7112 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b), (d), and (j)(1); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (n) and (o).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7112  What performance tests, design evaluations, and other 
procedures must I use?

* * * * *
    (b) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the 
specific conditions specified in table 5 to this subpart. Beginning 
July 16, 2024, each performance test must include the methods specified 
in rows

[[Page 57754]]

19-24 of table 5 to this subpart. On and after the relevant compliance 
date for your source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), each performance 
test must be conducted based on representative performance (i.e., 
performance based on normal operating conditions) of the affected 
source and under the specific conditions in table 5 to this subpart. 
Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown. The 
owner or operator may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
malfunction. The owner or operator must record the process information 
that is necessary to document operating conditions during the test and 
include in such record an explanation to support that such conditions 
represent normal operation. Upon request, the owner or operator shall 
make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to 
determine the conditions of performance tests. Performance tests 
conducted in accordance with table 5 are not required to be performed 
at the same time.
* * * * *
    (d) Except for opacity and VE observations, you must conduct three 
separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, 
as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 
hour or as specified in table 5 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (1) Continuously record the parameter during the performance test 
and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test report.
* * * * *
    (n) The emission rate of mercury and hydrogen chloride (HCl) from 
each lime kiln (and each lime cooler as applicable) must be computed 
for each run using equation 4 to this paragraph (n):

Equation 4 to Paragraph (n)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.000

Where:

E = Emission rate of mercury, pounds per thousand tons (lb/MMton) of 
lime produced or HCl pounds per ton (lb/ton) of lime produced.
Ck = Concentration in the kiln effluent of mercury, 
micrograms/dry standard cubic feet ([micro]g/dscf) or HCl, parts per 
million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dry 
standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration in the cooler effluent of mercury, 
[micro]g/dscf or HCl, ppmvd. This value is zero if there is not a 
separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere.
Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscf/
hr. This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to 
the atmosphere.
P = Lime production rate, tons per hour (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, for mercury, 4.4x10\8\ micrograms per pound 
([micro]g/lb) for HCL 1.09x10\7\ ppmvd HCl per lb/dscf HCl.

    (o) The concentration of total hydrocarbons and dioxins/furans 
shall be correct to 7 percent oxygen using equation 5 to this paragraph 
(o):

Equation 5 to Paragraph (o)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.001

Where:

C7 = concentration of total hydrocarbons ppmv as 
propane on a dry basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm corrected to 7 
percent oxygen.
Cunc = uncorrected total hydrocarbon concentration, ppmv 
as propane on a dry basis basis or dioxins/furans in ng/dscm.
CO2 = concentration of oxygen (percent).


0
9. Amend Sec.  63.7113 by adding paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7113  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (h) For each mass flow rate monitor used for measuring the dry 
sorbent injection rate (e.g., sorbent, activated carbon, etc.) you must 
meet the requirements of (h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a 
representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
    (2) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with 
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (3) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the 
manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
    (i) For each temperature monitoring device installed to monitor the 
temperature of a thermal oxidizer, you must meet the requirements of 
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Install the temperature monitoring device in the fire box or in 
the ductwork immediately downstream of the fire box in a position 
before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
    (2) The temperature measurement system must be capable of measuring 
the temperature over a range that extends at least 20 percent beyond 
the normal expected operating range and has an accuracy of 1 percent of temperature measured or 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 
degrees Fahrenheit) whichever is greater. The data recording system 
associated with affected CPMS must have a resolution that is equal to 
or better than one-half of the required system accuracy.
    (3) The calibration reference for the temperature measurement must 
be a National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) calibrated 
reference thermocouple-potentiometer system, NIST traceable certified 
reference thermocouple, or alternate reference, subject to approval by 
the Administrator.
    (4) The calibration of all thermocouples and other temperature 
sensors must be verified at least once every three months.

0
10. Amend Sec.  63.7114 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (d) and (e); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (b) and (c).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7114  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations standard?

* * * * *
    (b) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit 
or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, the average 
HCl or mercury emissions determined according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.7112(n), must not

[[Page 57755]]

exceed the applicable emission limit in table 9 to this subpart.
    (c) For those LMP that comply with either the HCl emissions limit 
or the mercury emission limit using emissions averaging, you must 
comply with the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) You must complete the stack testing required in paragraph Sec.  
63.7112(n) for all lime kilns you wish to include in the emission 
average before submitting the implementation plan required in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section.
    (2) You must develop and submit to the applicable regulatory 
authority for review and approval, an implementation plan for emission 
averaging no later than 180 days before the date you intend to 
demonstrate compliance using the emission averaging option. You must 
include the information contained in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) 
of this section in your implementation plan.
    (i) Identification of all lime kilns in the averaging group, 
including the lime kiln subcategory, type of lime produced, typical 
stone production rate, control technology installed, and types of 
fuel(s) that will be burned.
    (ii) The HCl or mercury emission rate for each lime kiln for each 
of the fuels identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section.
    (iii) The date on which you are requesting emission averaging to 
commence.
    (3) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove 
the plan according to the following criteria:
    (i) Whether the content of the plan includes all the information 
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Whether the plan presents sufficient information to determine 
that compliance will be achieved and maintained.
    (4) The applicable regulatory authority shall not approve an 
emission averaging implementation plan containing any of the following 
provisions:
    (i) Averaging between emissions of differing pollutants;
    (ii) Averaging that includes lime kilns constructed or 
reconstructed on or after July 16, 2024; or
    (iii) Averaging between lime kilns located at different facilities.
    (iv) Averaging between lime kilns in different subcategories.
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec.  63.7121 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7121  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations standard?

* * * * *
    (g) If you elect to comply with either the HCl emission limit or 
the mercury emission limit in table 9 to this subpart using emissions 
averaging in accordance with an implementation plan approved under the 
provisions in Sec.  63.7114(c) you must comply with the requirements in 
paragraphs (g)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) For lime kilns included in the emissions averaging group that 
are equipped with dry sorbent injection (DSI) or activated carbon 
injection (ACI) systems, you must comply with the requirements in Sec.  
63.7113(h).
    (2) For kilns included in the emissions averaging group that use a 
control device or method other than DSI or ACI, you must comply with 
your site-specific monitoring plan of this section, in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  63.7100(d).
    (3) Calculate the monthly production-weighted average emission rate 
using the HCl or mercury emission rate determined during the last 
performance test and the actual production data for each kiln included 
in the emissions averaging option, as shown in equation 1 to this 
paragraph (g)(3).

Equation 1 to Paragraph (g)(3)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.002

Where:

Eg = Monthly production-weighted average emission rate 
for month ``g'' for the group of kilns;
Ek = Average emission rate for kilns ``k'', as determined 
during the last compliance stack test;
Pk = Total monthly production of lime produced for kilns 
``k''; and
n = Number of kilns in the averaging group.

    (4) Until 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been 
accumulated, the monthly weighted average emissions rate, calculated as 
shown in paragraph (g)(3) of this section, must not exceed the emission 
limit in table 9 to this subpart in any calendar month.
    (5) After 12 monthly weighted average emission rates have been 
accumulated, for each subsequent calendar month, you must use equation 
2 to this paragraph (g)(5) to calculate the 12-month rolling average of 
the monthly weighted average emission rates for the current month and 
the previous 11 months. The 12-month rolling weighted average emissions 
rate for the kilns included in the group must not exceed the emission 
limits in table 9 to this subpart.

Equation 2 to Paragraph (g)(5)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.003

Where:

Eavg = 12-month rolling average emission rate.
Ei = Monthly weighted average for month ``i'' calculated 
as shown in equation 1 to paragraph (g)(3) of this section.

    (6) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl 
subcategory (e.g., high calcium quick lime and dolomitic quick lime) 
you must establish a kiln-specific emission limit using equation 3 to 
this paragraph (g)(6).

Equation 3 to Paragraph (g)(6)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.004


[[Page 57756]]


Where:

ELK = kiln-specific allowable emission limit, lb/yr.
PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick 
lime, ton lime produced/yr.
ELQL =Emission limit for high calcium quick lime taken 
from table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced.
PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime, 
ton lime produced/yr.
ELDL = Emission limit for dolomitic quick lime taken from 
table 9 to this subpart, lb HCl/ton lime produced.

    (7) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl 
subcategory, after the close of each calendar month compliance with the 
kiln-specific emission limit developed in this paragraph (g) would be 
calculated using equation 4 to this paragraph (g)(7).

Equation 4 to Paragraph (g)(7)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16JY24.005

Where:

EK = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'', as determined 
during the last compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production.
PQL = Actual 12-month production of high calcium quick 
lime, ton lime produced/yr.
EQL = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'' while 
producing high calcium quick lime, as determined during the last 
compliance stack test.
PDL = Actual 12-month production of dolomitic quick lime, 
ton lime produced/yr.
EDL = Average emission rate for kiln ``k'' while 
producing dolomitic quick lime, as determined during the last 
compliance stack test, lb HCl/ton production.

    (8) For those kilns that produce multiple types of lime in the HCl 
subcategory, compliance using the emissions averaging provisions is 
demonstrated when EK, as determined using equation 4 to 
paragraph (g)(7) of this section, is less than ELK, as 
determined using equation 3 to paragraph (g)(6) of this section.

0
12. Amend Sec.  63.7131 by revising paragraphs (d)(3), (e)(12), (g), 
and (h)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7131  What reports must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over a non-opacity or VE emission limit, and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (e) * * *
    (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over a non-opacity or VE emission limit, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph (g), you must submit reports to the EPA via 
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which 
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. The EPA will make all the information submitted through 
CEDRI available to the public without further notice to you. Do not use 
CEDRI to submit information you claim as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI). Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim 
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information 
in the report, you must submit a complete file, including information 
claimed to be CBI, to the EPA following the procedures in this 
paragraph (g). Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for 
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available. You must submit 
the same file submitted to the CBI office with the CBI omitted to the 
EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (g).
    (1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted 
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or 
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be 
transmitted directly to the Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS) CBI Office at the email address [email protected], and 
as described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to 
the attention of the Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. If assistance is 
needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size 
limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file 
sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a file 
transfer link.
    (2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Lime Manufacturing Sector Lead. The mailed 
CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI 
markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    (h) * * *
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). (i) The EPA will make 
all the information submitted through CEDRI available to the public 
without further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information 
you claim as CBI. Although we do not expect persons to assert a claim 
of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim for some of the information 
submitted under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section, you must 
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the 
EPA.
    (ii) The file must be generated using the EPA's ERT or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT 
website.
    (iii) Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. Information not marked as CBI may be authorized for 
public release without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not 
be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR 
part 2.
    (iv) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be 
transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer 
Protocol, or other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions 
must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email 
address [email protected], and as

[[Page 57757]]

described above, should include clear CBI markings and be flagged to 
the attention of the Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. If 
assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed 
the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your 
own file sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a 
file transfer link.
    (v) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send 
CBI information through the postal service to the following address: 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, Attention Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group. The 
mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any 
CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.
    (vi) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (vii) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office 
with the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in 
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *


Sec.  63.7142  [Amended]

0
13. Amend Sec.  63.7142 by:
0
a. Removing ``, or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(3) and adding a period 
in its place; and
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4).

0
14. Amend Sec.  63.7143 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``Dry sorbent 
injection (DSI)'' and ``Lime produced'';
0
b. Removing the definition for ``Lime product''; and
0
c. Adding, in alphabetical order, definition for ``TEQ'' and ``Total 
Organic HAP''.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7143  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Dry sorbent injection (DSI) means an add-on air pollution control 
system in which sorbent (e.g., conventional activated carbon, 
brominated activated carbon, Trona, hydrated lime, sodium carbonate, 
etc.) is injected into the flue gas steam upstream of a PM control 
device to react with and neutralize acid gases (such as SO2 
and HCl) or mercury in the exhaust stream forming a dry powder material 
that may be removed in a primary or secondary PM control device.
* * * * *
    Lime produced refers to the production of lime from the lime kiln 
consisting of high-calcium quick lime, dolomitic quick lime and/or dead 
burned dolomitic lime.
* * * * *
    TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity 
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in EPA/100/R-10/005, 
December 2010 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14). The TEFs 
used to determine the dioxin and furan TEQs are listed in table 11 to 
this subpart.
    Total Organic HAP means, for the purposes of this subpart, the sum 
of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, 
toluene, benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, 
and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 of 
appendix A to this part or a combination of these methods, as 
appropriate. If measurement results for any pollutant are reported as 
below the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results 
for one or more sample components are below the method defined 
analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as 
the measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the 
total organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component 
analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions) may 
include a combination of method detection level data and analytical 
data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator 
of an affected source may request the use of other test methods to make 
this determination under Sec.  63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f).
* * * * *

0
15. Revise tables 1 through 6, 8, and 9 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:

          Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
 [As required in Sec.   63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit in
  the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers
  during startup and shutdown (see table 2 to this subpart for emission
       limits for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  You must meet the following emission
          For . . .                              limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All existing lime kilns     PM emissions must not exceed 0.12 pounds
 and their associated lime      per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf).
 coolers that did not have a
 wet scrubber installed and
 operating prior to January
 5, 2004.
2. All existing lime kilns     PM emissions must not exceed 0.60 lb/tsf.
 and their associated lime      If, at any time after January 5, 2004,
 coolers that have a wet        the kiln changes to a dry control
 scrubber, where the scrubber   system, then the PM emission limit in
 itself was installed and       item 1 of this table 1 applies, and the
 operating prior to January     kiln is hereafter ineligible for the PM
 5, 2004.                       emission limit in item 2 of this table 1
                                regardless of the method of PM control.
3. All new lime kilns and      PM emissions must not exceed 0.10 lb/tsf.
 their associated lime
 coolers.
4. All existing and new lime   Weighted average PM emissions calculated
 kilns and their associated     according to equation 2 to Sec.
 coolers at your LMP, and you   63.7112(f)(1) must not exceed 0.12 lb/
 choose to average PM           tsf (if you are averaging only existing
 emissions, except that any     kilns) or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are
 kiln that is allowed to meet   averaging only new kilns). If you are
 the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission    averaging existing and new kilns, your
 limit is ineligible for        weighted average PM emissions must not
 averaging.                     exceed the weighted average emission
                                limit calculated according to equation 3
                                to Sec.   63.7112(g), except that no new
                                kiln and its associated cooler
                                considered alone may exceed an average
                                PM emissions limit of 0.10 lb/tsf.
5. New straight rotary lime    HCl emissions must not exceed 1.7 lb/ton
 kilns and their associated     of lime produced.
 coolers producing dolomitic
 quick lime and/or dead
 burned dolomitic lime.
6. Existing straight rotary    HCl emissions must not exceed 2.3 lb/ton
 lime kilns and their           of lime produced.
 associated coolers producing
 dolomitic quick lime and/or
 dead burned dolomitic lime.

[[Page 57758]]

 
7. New straight rotary lime    HCl emissions must not exceed 0.015 lb/
 kilns and their associated     ton of lime produced.
 coolers producing high-
 calcium quick lime.
8. Existing straight rotary    HCl emissions must not exceed 0.52 lb/ton
 lime kilns and their           of lime produced.
 associated coolers producing
 high-calcium quick lime.
9. All preheater rotary lime   HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton
 kilns and their associated     of lime produced.
 coolers producing dolomitic
 quick lime and/or dead
 burned dolomitic lime.
10. All preheater rotary lime  HCl emissions must not exceed 0.096 lb/
 kilns and their associated     ton of lime produced.
 coolers producing high-
 calcium quick lime.
11. All vertical lime kilns    HCl emissions must not exceed 0.39 lb/ton
 and their associated coolers   of lime produced.
 producing dolomitic quick
 lime and/or dead burned
 dolomitic lime.
12. All vertical lime kilns    HCl emissions must not exceed 0.021 lb/
 and their associated coolers   ton of lime produced.
 producing high-calcium quick
 lime.
13. All new lime kilns and     Mercury emissions must not exceed 27 lb/
 their associated coolers.      MMton of lime produced.
14. All existing lime kilns    Mercury emissions must not exceed 34 lb/
 and their associated coolers.  MMton of lime produced.
15. All lime kilns and their   Total Organic HAP emissions must not
 associated coolers.            exceed 2.6 ppmvd @7% O2.
16. All lime kilns and their   D/F emissions must not exceed 0.037 ng/
 associated coolers.            dscm (TEQ) \1\ @7% O2.
17. Stack emissions from all   PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams
 PSH operations at a new or     per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm).
 existing affected source.
18. Stack emissions from all   Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
 PSH operations at a new or     opacity.
 existing affected source,
 unless the stack emissions
 are discharged through a wet
 scrubber control device.
19. Fugitive emissions from    Emissions must not exceed 10 percent
 all PSH operations at a new    opacity.
 or existing affected source,
 except as provided by item 8
 of this table 1.
20. All PSH operations at a    All of the individually affected PSH
 new or existing affected       operations must comply with the
 source enclosed in a           applicable PM and opacity emission
 building.                      limitations in items 5 through 7 of this
                                table 1, or the building must comply
                                with the following: There must be no VE
                                from the building, except from a vent;
                                and vent emissions must not exceed the
                                stack emissions limitations in items 5
                                and 6 of this table 1.
21. Each FF that controls      Emissions must not exceed 7 percent
 emissions from only an         opacity.
 individual, enclosed storage
 bin.
22. Each set of multiple       You must comply with the emission limits
 storage bins at a new or       in items 5 and 6 of this table 1.
 existing affected source,
 with combined stack
 emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Determined using the toxic equivalency factors listed in Table 2 of
  Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
  Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like
  Compounds (incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14). When
  calculating TEQ, zero may be used for congeners that are below the
  estimated detection level (EDL).


   Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Startup and Shutdown Emission
                      Limits for Kilns and Coolers
 [As required in Sec.   63.7090(b), on and after the relevant compliance
  date for your source as specified in Sec.   63.7083(e), you must meet
    each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
                                                        demonstrated
                                You must meet the   compliance, if after
          For . . .            following emission       following the
                                      limit         requirements in Sec.
                                                         63.7112 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new and existing lime  Emissions must not    i. Installed,
 kilns and their associated    exceed 15 percent     maintained,
 coolers equipped with an FF   opacity (based on     calibrated and
 or an ESP during each         startup period        operated a COMS as
 startup.                      block average).       required by the
                                                     general provisions
                                                     of subpart A of
                                                     this part and
                                                     according to PS-1
                                                     of appendix B to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, except
                                                     as specified in
                                                     Sec.
                                                     63.7113(g)(2);
                                                    ii. Collected the
                                                     COMS data at a
                                                     frequency of at
                                                     least once every 15
                                                     seconds,
                                                     determining block
                                                     averages for each
                                                     startup period and
                                                     demonstrating for
                                                     each startup block
                                                     period the average
                                                     opacity does not
                                                     exceed 15 percent.
2. All existing lime kilns    See item 2.b of       See item 1 of table
 and their associated          table 3 to this       6 to this subpart
 coolers that have a wet       subpart for           for requirements
 scrubber during each          emission limit.       for demonstrating
 startup.                                            compliance.

[[Page 57759]]

 
3. All new and existing lime  Emissions must not    i. Installed,
 kilns and their associated    exceed 15 percent     maintained,
 coolers equipped with an FF   opacity (based on 6-  calibrated and
 or an ESP during shutdown.    minute average        operated a COMS as
                               opacity for any 6-    required by the
                               minute block period   general provisions
                               does not exceed 15    of subpart A of
                               percent).             this and according
                                                     to PS-1 of appendix
                                                     B to 40 CFR part
                                                     60, except as
                                                     specified in Sec.
                                                     63.7113(g)(2);
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     COMS data at a
                                                     frequency of at
                                                     least once every 15
                                                     seconds,
                                                     determining block
                                                     averages for each 6-
                                                     minute period and
                                                     demonstrating for
                                                     each 6-minute block
                                                     period the average
                                                     opacity does not
                                                     exceed 15 percent.
4. All existing lime kilns    See item 2.b of       See item 1 of table
 and their associated          table 3 to this       6 to this subpart
 coolers that have a wet       subpart for           for requirements
 scrubber during shutdown.     emission limit.       for demonstrating
                                                     compliance.
5. All new and existing lime                        When a lime kiln is
 kilns that use dry sorbent                          in startup or
 injection or carbon                                 shutdown (as
 injection during startup                            defined in Sec.
 and shutdown.                                       63.7143), the
                                                     operating limits
                                                     for sorbent and/or
                                                     carbon injection do
                                                     not apply in table
                                                     3 to this subpart,
                                                     and the lime kiln
                                                     operator shall
                                                     ensure that sorbent
                                                     or carbon injection
                                                     is in operation
                                                     until the unit is
                                                     no longer in
                                                     startup or
                                                     shutdown.
                                                    During startup and
                                                     shutdown, the
                                                     control device
                                                     shall be operated
                                                     in accordance with
                                                     manufacturer's
                                                     recommendations or
                                                     by a site-specific
                                                     operating procedure
                                                     for startup and
                                                     shutdown events.
6. All new and existing lime                        6. When a lime kiln
 kilns that use a thermal                            is in startup or
 oxidizer during startup and                         shutdown (as
 shutdown.                                           defined in Sec.
                                                     63.7143), the
                                                     temperature limits
                                                     for a thermal
                                                     oxidizer in table 3
                                                     to this subpart do
                                                     not apply and the
                                                     lime kiln operator
                                                     shall ensure that
                                                     the thermal
                                                     oxidizer is in
                                                     operation until the
                                                     unit is no longer
                                                     in startup or
                                                     shutdown.
                                                    During startup and
                                                     shutdown, the
                                                     control device
                                                     shall be operated
                                                     in accordance with
                                                     manufacturer's
                                                     recommendations or
                                                     by a site-specific
                                                     operating procedure
                                                     for startup and
                                                     shutdown events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
[As required in Sec.   63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit in
  the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and coolers
 during startup and shutdown (See table 2 to this subpart for operating
                  limits during startup and shutdown).]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For . . .                         You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime     Maintain and operate the FF such
 cooler (if there is a separate      that the BLDS or PM detector alarm
 exhaust to the atmosphere from      condition does not exist for more
 the associated lime cooler)         than 5 percent of the total
 equipped with an FF.                operating time in a 6-month period;
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(d) through (f) and
                                     table 6 to this subpart. In lieu of
                                     a BLDS or PM detector maintain the
                                     FF such that the 6-minute average
                                     opacity for any 6-minute block
                                     period does not exceed 15 percent;
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(f) and (g) and table
                                     6 to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a   a. Maintain the 3-hour block exhaust
 wet scrubber.                       gas stream pressure drop across the
                                     wet scrubber greater than or equal
                                     to the greater of the pressure drop
                                     operating limit established during
                                     the most recent performance test
                                     for PM and HCl; and
                                    b. Maintain the 3-hour block
                                     scrubbing liquid flow rate greater
                                     than or equal to the greater of the
                                     flow rate operating limit
                                     established during the most recent
                                     performance test for PM and HCl.
3. Each lime kiln equipped with an  Install a PM detector and maintain
 electrostatic precipitator.         and operate the ESP such that the
                                     PM detector alarm is not activated
                                     and alarm condition does not exist
                                     for more than 5 percent of the
                                     total operating time in a 6-month
                                     period, and comply with Sec.
                                     63.7113(e); or, maintain the ESP
                                     such that the 6-minute average
                                     opacity for any 6-minute block
                                     period does not exceed 15 percent,
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(g); and comply with
                                     the requirements in Sec.
                                     63.7113(f) and table 6 to this
                                     subpart.
4. Each PSH operation subject to a  Maintain the 3-hour block average
 PM limit which uses a wet           exhaust gas stream pressure drop
 scrubber.                           across the wet scrubber greater
                                     than or equal to the greater of the
                                     pressure drop operating limit
                                     established during the performance
                                     test for PM and HCl; and maintain
                                     the 3-hour block average scrubbing
                                     liquid flow rate greater than or
                                     equal to the greater of the flow
                                     rate operating limit established
                                     during the performance test for PM
                                     and HCl.
5. All affected sources...........  Prepare a written OM&M plan; the
                                     plan must include the items listed
                                     in Sec.   63.7100(d) and the
                                     corrective actions to be taken when
                                     required in table 6 to this
                                     subpart.

[[Page 57760]]

 
6. Each emission unit equipped      a. Vent captured emissions through a
 with an add-on air pollution        closed system, except that dilution
 control device.                     air may be added to emission
                                     streams for the purpose of
                                     controlling temperature at the
                                     inlet to an FF; and
                                    b. Operate each capture/collection
                                     system according to the procedures
                                     and requirements in the OM&M plan.
7. Each lime kiln equipped with     Maintain the 3-hour block dry
 dry sorbent injection.              sorbent flow rate greater than or
                                     equal to the flow rate operating
                                     limit established during the most
                                     recent performance test for HCl.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Maintain the 3-hour block average
 thermal oxidizer.                   combustion chamber temperature
                                     greater or equal to the greater of
                                     the combustion chamber operating
                                     limit established in the most
                                     recent performance test for total
                                     organic HAP and D/F.
9. Each lime kiln equipped with     Maintain the 3-hour block activated
 activated carbon injection.         carbon injection flow rate greater
                                     than or equal to the greater of the
                                     flow rate operating limit
                                     established during the most recent
                                     performance test for total organic
                                     HAP, D/F, and mercury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
                                 Limits
 [As required in Sec.   63.7114, you must demonstrate initial compliance
   with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the
                            following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
                                                    demonstrated initial
                                For the following   compliance, if after
          For . . .           emission limit . . .      following the
                                                    requirements in Sec.
                                                         63.7112 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new or existing lime   Emission limits as    The kiln outlet PM,
 kilns and their associated    identified in table   HCl, mercury, and
 lime coolers (kilns/          1 to this subpart,    Total Organic HAP,
 coolers).                     or a weighted         and dioxins and
                               average calculated    furans emissions
                               according to          (and if applicable,
                               equation 3 to Sec.    summed with the
                                63.7112.             separate cooler PM
                                                     emissions), based
                                                     on the PM emissions
                                                     measured using
                                                     Method 5 or 5D in
                                                     appendix A to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, HCl
                                                     measured using
                                                     Method 320 or 321
                                                     in appendix A to
                                                     this part, mercury
                                                     measured using
                                                     Method 29 or 30B 5D
                                                     in appendix A to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, and
                                                     the stone feed rate
                                                     measurement over
                                                     the period of
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test and Total
                                                     Organic HAP
                                                     measured using
                                                     Method 18 5D in
                                                     appendix A to 40
                                                     CFR part 60 and/or
                                                     Method 320 in
                                                     appendix A to this
                                                     part and dioxins
                                                     and furans measured
                                                     using Method 23 in
                                                     appendix A to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, do not
                                                     exceed the emission
                                                     limit; if the lime
                                                     kiln is controlled
                                                     by an FF or ESP and
                                                     you are opting to
                                                     monitor PM
                                                     emissions with a
                                                     BLDS or PM
                                                     detector, you have
                                                     installed and are
                                                     operating the
                                                     monitoring device
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.7113(d)
                                                     or (e),
                                                     respectively; and
                                                     if the lime kiln is
                                                     controlled by an FF
                                                     or ESP and you are
                                                     opting to monitor
                                                     PM emissions using
                                                     a COMS, you have
                                                     installed and are
                                                     operating the COMS
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     Sec.   63.7113(g).
                                                     If the kiln is
                                                     equipped with a dry
                                                     sorbent injection
                                                     system, you have a
                                                     record of the dry
                                                     sorbent and/or
                                                     carbon injection
                                                     flow rate operating
                                                     parameter over the
                                                     3-hour performance
                                                     test during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation. If the
                                                     kiln is equipped
                                                     with a thermal
                                                     oxidizer, you have
                                                     a record of the
                                                     combustion chamber
                                                     operating
                                                     temperature
                                                     operating parameter
                                                     over the 3-hour
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation.
2. Stack emissions from all   PM emissions must     The outlet PM
 PHS operations at a new or    not exceed 0.05 g/    emissions, based on
 existing affected source.     dscm.                 Method 5 or Method
                                                     17 in appendices A-
                                                     3 and A-6,
                                                     respectively, to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, over
                                                     the period of the
                                                     initial performance
                                                     test do not exceed
                                                     0.05 g/dscm; and if
                                                     the emission unit
                                                     is controlled with
                                                     a wet scrubber, you
                                                     have a record of
                                                     the scrubber's
                                                     pressure drop and
                                                     liquid flow rate
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters over the
                                                     3-hour performance
                                                     test during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation.

[[Page 57761]]

 
3. Stack emissions from all   Emissions must not    Each of the thirty 6-
 PSH operations at a new or    exceed 7 percent      minute opacity
 existing affected source,     opacity.              averages during the
 unless the stack emissions                          initial compliance
 are discharged through a                            period, using
 wet scrubber control device.                        Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A-4 to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, does
                                                     not exceed the 7
                                                     percent opacity
                                                     limit. At least
                                                     thirty 6-minute
                                                     averages must be
                                                     obtained.
4. Fugitive emissions from    Emissions must not    Each of the 6-minute
 all PSH operations at a new   exceed 10 percent     opacity averages
 or existing affected source.  opacity.              during the initial
                                                     compliance period,
                                                     using Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A-4 to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, does
                                                     not exceed the 10
                                                     percent opacity
                                                     limit.
5. All PSH operations at a    All of the            All the PSH
 new or existing affected      individually          operations enclosed
 source, enclosed in           affected PSH          in the building
 building.                     operations must       have demonstrated
                               comply with the       initial compliance
                               applicable PM and     according to the
                               opacity emission      applicable
                               limitations for       requirements for
                               items 2 through 4     items 2 through 4
                               of this table 4, or   of this table 4; or
                               the building must     if you are
                               comply with the       complying with the
                               following: There      building emission
                               must be no VE from    limitations, there
                               the building,         are no VE from the
                               except from a vent,   building according
                               and vent emissions    to item 18 of table
                               must not exceed the   5 to this subpart
                               emission              and Sec.
                               limitations in        63.7112(k), and you
                               items 2 and 3 of      demonstrate initial
                               this table 4.         compliance with
                                                     applicable building
                                                     vent emissions
                                                     limitations
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     items 2 and 3 of
                                                     this table 4.
6. Each FF that controls      Emissions must not    Each of the ten 6-
 emissions from only an        exceed 7 percent      minute averages
 individual storage bin.       opacity.              during the 1-hour
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     period, using
                                                     Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A-4 to 40
                                                     CFR part 60, does
                                                     not exceed the 7
                                                     percent opacity
                                                     limit.
7. Each set of multiple       You must comply with  You demonstrate
 storage bins with combined    emission              initial compliance
 stack emissions.              limitations in        according to the
                               items 2 and 3 of      requirements in
                               this table 4.         items 2 and 3 of
                                                     this table 4.
8. All new or existing lime   You must meet the     The kiln outlet HCl,
 kilns and their associated    emission              mercury, total
 lime coolers (kilns/          limitations for       organic HAP, and D/
 coolers).                     HCl, mercury, total   F emissions (and if
                               organic HAP, and      applicable, summed
                               dioxins and furans    with the separate
                               in items 5 through    cooler emissions),
                               16 of table 1 to      based on the
                               this subpart.         emissions measured
                                                     according to table
                                                     5 to this subpart
                                                     over the period of
                                                     the initial
                                                     performance test do
                                                     not exceed the
                                                     applicable limits
                                                     in items 5 through
                                                     16 of table 1 to
                                                     this subpart. If
                                                     the emission unit
                                                     is controlled with
                                                     a wet scrubber,
                                                     during the HCl
                                                     performance test
                                                     you have a record
                                                     of the scrubber's
                                                     pressure drop and
                                                     liquid flow rate
                                                     operating
                                                     parameters over the
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the HCl
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation. If the
                                                     emission unit is
                                                     controlled with a
                                                     dry sorbent
                                                     injection, during
                                                     the HCl performance
                                                     test you have a
                                                     record of the dry
                                                     sorbent flow rate
                                                     operating parameter
                                                     over the HCl
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the HCl
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation. If the
                                                     emission unit is
                                                     controlled with a
                                                     thermal oxidizer,
                                                     during the total
                                                     organic HAP and D/F
                                                     performance test(s)
                                                     you have a record
                                                     of the temperature
                                                     operating parameter
                                                     over the total
                                                     organic HAP and D/F
                                                     performance test
                                                     during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the total
                                                     organic HAP and D/F
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation(s). If
                                                     the emission unit
                                                     is controlled with
                                                     an activated carbon
                                                     injection, during
                                                     the total organic
                                                     HAP, D/F, and
                                                     mercury performance
                                                     test(s) you have a
                                                     record of the
                                                     temperature
                                                     operating parameter
                                                     over the total
                                                     organic HAP, D/F,
                                                     and mercury
                                                     performance test(s)
                                                     during which
                                                     emissions did not
                                                     exceed the total
                                                     organic HAP, D/F,
                                                     and mercury
                                                     emissions
                                                     limitation(s).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 57762]]


                     Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
  [As required in Sec.   63.7112, you must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to
                                                      you.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      According to the following
             For . . .                   You must . . .            Using . . .            requirements . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each           Select the location of  Method 1 or 1A of       Sampling sites must be
 associated lime cooler, if there     the sampling ports      appendix A-1 to 40      located at the outlet of
 is a separate exhaust to the         and the number of       CFR part 60; and Sec.   the control device(s) and
 atmosphere from the associated       traverse points.          63.6(d)(1)(i).        prior to any releases to
 lime cooler.                                                                         the atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each           Determine velocity and  Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,   Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there     volumetric flow rate.   2F, or 2G in
 is a separate exhaust to the                                 appendices A-1 and A-
 atmosphere from the associated                               2 to 40 CFR part 60.
 lime cooler.
3. Each lime kiln and each           Conduct gas molecular   Method 3, 3A, or 3B in  You may use manual
 associated lime cooler, if there     weight analysis.        appendix A-2 to 40      procedures (but not
 is a separate exhaust to the                                 CFR part 60.            instrumental procedures)
 atmosphere from the associated                                                       of ASME PTC 19.10-1981--
 lime cooler.                                                                         Part 10 (see Sec.   63.14
                                                                                      for availability) as an
                                                                                      alternative to using
                                                                                      Method 3B.
4. Each lime kiln and each           Measure moisture        Method 4 in appendix A- Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there     content of the stack    3 to 40 CFR part 60.
 is a separate exhaust to the         gas.
 atmosphere from the associated
 lime cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each           Measure PM emissions..  Method 5 in appendix A- Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                             3 to 40 CFR part 60.    the source is operating at
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                         representative operating
 atmosphere from the associated                                                       conditions in accordance
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                        with Sec.   63.7(e) before
 negative pressure PM control                                                         the relevant compliance
 device.                                                                              date for your source as
                                                                                      specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                      63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b)
                                                                                      on and after the relevant
                                                                                      compliance date for your
                                                                                      source as specified in
                                                                                      Sec.   63.7083(e); the
                                                                                      minimum sampling volume
                                                                                      must be 0.85 dry standard
                                                                                      cubic meter (dscm) (30 dry
                                                                                      standard cubic foot
                                                                                      (dscf)); if there is a
                                                                                      separate lime cooler
                                                                                      exhaust to the atmosphere,
                                                                                      you must conduct the
                                                                                      Method 5 test of the
                                                                                      cooler exhaust
                                                                                      concurrently with the kiln
                                                                                      exhaust test.
6. Each lime kiln and each           Measure PM emissions..  Method 5D in appendix   Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                             A-3 to 40 CFR part 60.  the source is operating at
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                         representative operating
 atmosphere from the associated                                                       conditions in accordance
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                        with Sec.   63.7(e) before
 positive pressure FF or ESP.                                                         the relevant compliance
                                                                                      date for your source as
                                                                                      specified in Sec.  Sec.
                                                                                      63.7083(e) and 63.7112(b)
                                                                                      on and after the relevant
                                                                                      compliance date for your
                                                                                      source as specified in
                                                                                      Sec.   63.7083(e); If
                                                                                      there is a separate lime
                                                                                      cooler exhaust to the
                                                                                      atmosphere, you must
                                                                                      conduct the Method 5 or 5D
                                                                                      test of the separate
                                                                                      cooler exhaust
                                                                                      concurrently with the kiln
                                                                                      exhaust test. Refer to
                                                                                      item 5 of this table for
                                                                                      sampling time and volume
                                                                                      requirements.
7. Each lime kiln..................  Determine the mass      Any suitable device...  Calibrate and maintain the
                                      rate of stone feed to                           device according to
                                      the kiln during the                             manufacturer's
                                      kiln performance test.                          instructions; the
                                                                                      measuring device used must
                                                                                      be accurate to within
                                                                                      5 percent of
                                                                                      the mass rate of stone
                                                                                      feed over its operating
                                                                                      range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a    Establish the           Data for the gas        The continuous pressure
 wet scrubber.                        operating limit for     stream pressure drop    drop measurement device
                                      the average gas         measurement device      must be accurate within
                                      stream pressure drop    during the kiln         plus or minus 1 percent;
                                      across the wet          performance test.       you must collect the
                                      scrubber during the                             pressure drop data during
                                      PM and HCl                                      the period of the
                                      performance test(s).                            performance test and
                                                                                      determine the operating
                                                                                      limit according to Sec.
                                                                                      63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a    Establish the           Data from the liquid    The continuous scrubbing
 wet scrubber.                        operating limit for     flow rate measurement   liquid flow rate measuring
                                      the average liquid      device during the       device must be accurate
                                      flow rate to the        kiln performance test.  within plus or minus 1
                                      scrubber during the                             percent; you must collect
                                      PM and HCl                                      the flow rate data during
                                      performance test(s).                            the period of the
                                                                                      performance test and
                                                                                      determine the operating
                                                                                      limit according to Sec.
                                                                                      63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Have installed and      Standard operating      According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with a   have operating the      procedures              requirements in Sec.
 PM detector.                         BLDS or PM detector     incorporated into the   63.7113(d) or (e),
                                      prior to the PM         OM&M plan.              respectively.
                                      performance test.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Have installed and      Standard operating      According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with a   have operating the      procedures              requirements in Sec.
 COMS.                                COMS prior to the       incorporated into the   63.7113(g).
                                      performance test.       OM&M plan and as
                                                              required by the
                                                              general provisions of
                                                              subpart A of this
                                                              part and according to
                                                              PS-1 of appendix B to
                                                              40 CFR part 60,
                                                              except as specified
                                                              in Sec.
                                                              63.7113(g)(2).
12. Each stack emission from a PSH   Measure PM emissions..  Method 5 or Method 17   The sample volume must be
 operation, vent from a building                              in appendices A-3 and   at least 1.70 dscm (60
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                            A-6 to 40 CFR part 60.  dscf); for Method 5, if
 of multiple storage bins with                                                        the gas stream being
 combined stack emissions, which is                                                   sampled is at ambient
 subject to a PM emission limit.                                                      temperature, the sampling
                                                                                      probe and filter may be
                                                                                      operated without heaters;
                                                                                      and if the gas stream is
                                                                                      above ambient temperature,
                                                                                      the sampling probe and
                                                                                      filter may be operated at
                                                                                      a temperature high enough,
                                                                                      but no higher than 121
                                                                                      [deg]C (250 [deg]F), to
                                                                                      prevent water condensation
                                                                                      on the filter (Method 17
                                                                                      may be used only with
                                                                                      exhaust gas temperatures
                                                                                      of not more than 250
                                                                                      [deg]F).

[[Page 57763]]

 
13. Each stack emission from a PSH   Conduct opacity         Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
 operation, vent from a building      observations.           4 to 40 CFR part 60.    for at least 3 hours and
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                                                    you must obtain at least
 of multiple storage bins with                                                        thirty, 6-minute averages.
 combined stack emissions, which is
 subject to an opacity limit.
14. Each stack emissions source      Establish the average   Data for the gas        The pressure drop
 from a PSH operation subject to a    gas stream pressure     stream pressure drop    measurement device must be
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a    drop across the wet     measurement device      accurate within plus or
 wet scrubber.                        scrubber during the     during the PSH          minus 1 percent; you must
                                      PM and HCl              operation stack         collect the pressure drop
                                      performance test(s).    performance test.       data during the period of
                                                                                      the performance test and
                                                                                      determine the operating
                                                                                      limit according to Sec.
                                                                                      63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source      Establish the           Data from the liquid    The continuous scrubbing
 from a PSH operation subject to a    operating limit for     flow rate measurement   liquid flow rate measuring
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a    the average liquid      device during the PSH   device must be accurate
 wet scrubber.                        flow rate to the        operation stack         within plus or minus 1
                                      scrubber during the     performance test.       percent; you must collect
                                      PM and HCl                                      the flow rate data during
                                      performance test(s).                            the period of the
                                                                                      performance test and
                                                                                      determine the operating
                                                                                      limit according to Sec.
                                                                                      63.7112(j).
16. Each FF that controls emissions  Conduct opacity         Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
 from only an individual, enclosed,   observations.           4 to 40 CFR part 60.    for at least 1 hour and
 new or existing storage bin.                                                         you must obtain ten 6-
                                                                                      minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH  Conduct opacity         Method 9 in appendix A- The test duration must be
 operation subject to an opacity      observations.           4 to 40 CFR part 60.    for at least 3 hours, but
 limit.                                                                               the 3-hour test may be
                                                                                      reduced to 1 hour if,
                                                                                      during the first 1-hour
                                                                                      period, there are no
                                                                                      individual readings
                                                                                      greater than 10 percent
                                                                                      opacity and there are no
                                                                                      more than three readings
                                                                                      of 10 percent during the
                                                                                      first 1-hour period.
18. Each building enclosing any PSH  Conduct VE check......  The specifications in   The performance test must
 operation, that is subject to a VE                           Sec.   63.7112(k).      be conducted while all
 limit.                                                                               affected PSH operations
                                                                                      within the building are
                                                                                      operating; the performance
                                                                                      test for each affected
                                                                                      building must be at least
                                                                                      75 minutes, with each side
                                                                                      of the building and roof
                                                                                      being observed for at
                                                                                      least 15 minutes.
19. Each lime kiln.................  Measure hydrogen        Method 320 or 321 of    The test duration must be
                                      chloride.               appendix A to this      at least one hour. HCl
                                                              part or ASTM 6348-12    must be used for the
                                                              (Reapproved 2020) \1\   analyte spiking. For a
                                                              \2\.                    positive pressure FF or
                                                                                      ESP, determine the number
                                                                                      of sampling points per the
                                                                                      stratification check
                                                                                      procedures of section
                                                                                      8.1.2 of Method 7E in
                                                                                      appendix A-4 to 40 CFR
                                                                                      part 60 using the sample
                                                                                      points determined using
                                                                                      the procedures of Section
                                                                                      8 of EPA Method 5D.
20. Each lime kiln.................  Measure mercury.......  Method 29 or 30B of     For Method 29 and ASTM
                                                              appendix A-8 to 40      D6784-16 \2\ the test
                                                              CFR part 60 or ASTM     duration must be at least
                                                              D6784-16 \2\.           two hours and the sample
                                                                                      volume must be at least
                                                                                      1.70 dscm (60 dscf). For
                                                                                      Method 30B, the test
                                                                                      duration must be at least
                                                                                      one hour and the sample
                                                                                      volume at least 100
                                                                                      liters. For a positive
                                                                                      pressure FF or ESP, use
                                                                                      the procedures of Section
                                                                                      8 of EPA Method 5D for
                                                                                      sampling points.
21. Each lime kiln.................  Measure total organic   Method 18 and/or 320    The test duration must be
                                      HAP \3\.                in appendix A to 40     at least 1 hour. For EPA
                                                              CFR part 60 and/or      Method 320 and ASTM D6348-
                                                              ASTM D6348-12           12 (Reapproved 2020), for
                                                              (Reapproved 2020) \1\.  a positive pressure FF or
                                                                                      ESP, determine the number
                                                                                      of sampling points per the
                                                                                      stratification check
                                                                                      procedures of section
                                                                                      8.1.2 of Method 7E using
                                                                                      the sample points
                                                                                      determined using the
                                                                                      procedures of Section 8 of
                                                                                      EPA Method 5D.
22. Each lime kiln.................  Measure dioxins/furans  Method 23 in appendix   The test duration must be
                                                              A-7 to 40 CFR part 60.  at least 3 hours and the
                                                                                      must be at least 3 dscm
                                                                                      (106 dscf). For a positive
                                                                                      pressure FF or ESP, use
                                                                                      the procedures of Section
                                                                                      8 of EPA Method 5D for
                                                                                      sampling points.
23. Each lime kiln equipped with     Establish the           Data for the dry        The flow monitor must meet
 dry sorbent injection.               operating limit for     sorbent flow rate       the criteria in Sec.
                                      the dry sorbent flow    device during the HCl   63.7113(h); you must
                                      rate during the HCl     performance test.       collect the dry sorbent
                                      performance test.                               flow rate data during the
                                                                                      period of the HCl
                                                                                      performance test and
                                                                                      determine the operating
                                                                                      limit according to Sec.
                                                                                      63.7112(j).
24. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Establish the           Data for the            The temperature device must
 thermal oxidizer.                    operating limit for     temperature device      meet the criteria in Sec.
                                      the combustion          during the total         63.7113(i); you must
                                      chamber temperature     organic HAP and D/F     collect the temperature
                                      during the total        performance test(s).    data during the period of
                                      organic HAP and D/F                             the total organic HAP and
                                      performance test(s).                            D/F performance test(s)
                                                                                      and determine the
                                                                                      operating limit according
                                                                                      to Sec.   63.7112(j).
25. Each lime kiln equipped with     Establish the           Data for the activated  The flow monitor must meet
 activated carbon injection.          operating limit for     carbon flow rate        the criteria in Sec.
                                      the combustion          device during the       63.7113(h); you must
                                      chamber temperature     total organic HAP, D/   collect the activated
                                      during the total        F, and mercury          carbon flow rate data
                                      organic HAP, D/F, and   performance test(s).    during the period of the
                                      mercury performance                             total organic HAP, D/F,
                                      test(s).                                        and mercury performance
                                                                                      test(s)and determine the
                                                                                      operating limit according
                                                                                      to Sec.   63.7112(j).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When using ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) the test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
  ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020), annexes A1 through A8 are mandatory. In ASTM D6348-12 (Reapproved 2020) Annex
  A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
  In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does
  not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that compound and the test
  must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
  retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must
  be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound according to: Reported Results = ((Measured
  Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100.
\2\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   63.14.
\3\ Total Organic HAP is the sum of the concentrations of compounds of formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene,
  benzene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, styrene, ethyl benzene, and naphthalene.


[[Page 57764]]


     Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
                            Operating Limits
     [As required in Sec.   63.7121, you must demonstrate continuous
 compliance with each operating limit listed in Table 3 to subpart AAAAA
         that applies to you, according to the following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                operating limit .   You must demonstrate
           For . . .                   . .         continuous compliance
                                                          by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled    Maintain the 3-    Collecting the wet
 by a wet scrubber.              hour block         scrubber operating
                                 average exhaust    data according to
                                 gas stream         all applicable
                                 pressure drop      requirements in Sec.
                                 across the wet       63.7113 and
                                 scrubber greater   reducing the data
                                 than or equal to   according to Sec.
                                 the pressure       63.7113(a);
                                 drop operating     maintaining the 3-
                                 limit              hour block average
                                 established        exhaust gas stream
                                 during the         pressure drop across
                                 performance        the wet scrubber
                                 test; and          greater than or
                                 maintain the 3-    equal to the
                                 hour block         pressure drop
                                 average            operating limit
                                 scrubbing liquid   established during
                                 flow rate          the performance
                                 greater than or    test; and
                                 equal to the       maintaining the 3-
                                 flow rate          hour block average
                                 operating limit    scrubbing liquid
                                 established        flow rate greater
                                 during the         than or equal to the
                                 performance test.  flow rate operating
                                                    limit established
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test
                                                    (the continuous
                                                    scrubbing liquid
                                                    flow rate measuring
                                                    device must be
                                                    accurate within
                                                    1% and
                                                    the continuous
                                                    pressure drop
                                                    measurement device
                                                    must be accurate
                                                    within 1%).
2. Each lime kiln or lime       a. Maintain and    i. Operating the FF
 cooler equipped with a FF and   operate the FF     or ESP so that the
 using a BLDS, and each lime     or ESP such that   alarm on the bag
 kiln equipped with an ESP or    the bag leak or    leak or PM detection
 FF using a PM detector.         PM detector        system is not
                                 alarm, is not      activated and an
                                 activated and      alarm condition does
                                 alarm condition    not exist for more
                                 does not exist     than 5 percent of
                                 for more than 5    the total operating
                                 percent of the     time in each 6-month
                                 total operating    reporting period;
                                 time in each 6-    and continuously
                                 month period.      recording the output
                                                    from the BLD or PM
                                                    detection system;
                                                    and
                                                   ii. Each time the
                                                    alarm sounds and the
                                                    owner or operator
                                                    initiates corrective
                                                    actions within 1
                                                    hour of the alarm, 1
                                                    hour of alarm time
                                                    will be counted (if
                                                    the owner or
                                                    operator takes
                                                    longer than 1 hour
                                                    to initiate
                                                    corrective actions,
                                                    alarm time will be
                                                    counted as the
                                                    actual amount of
                                                    time taken by the
                                                    owner or operator to
                                                    initiate corrective
                                                    actions); if
                                                    inspection of the FF
                                                    or ESP system
                                                    demonstrates that no
                                                    corrective actions
                                                    are necessary, no
                                                    alarm time will be
                                                    counted.
3. Each stack emissions source  Maintain the 3-    Collecting the wet
 from a PSH operation subject    hour block         scrubber operating
 to an opacity limit, which is   average exhaust    data according to
 controlled by a wet scrubber.   gas stream         all applicable
                                 pressure drop      requirements in Sec.
                                 across the wet       63.7113 and
                                 scrubber greater   reducing the data
                                 than or equal to   according to Sec.
                                 the pressure       63.7113(a);
                                 drop operating     maintaining the 3-
                                 limit              hour block average
                                 established        exhaust gas stream
                                 during the         pressure drop across
                                 performance        the wet scrubber
                                 test; and          greater than or
                                 maintain the 3-    equal to the
                                 hour block         pressure drop
                                 average            operating limit
                                 scrubbing liquid   established during
                                 flow rate          the performance
                                 greater than or    test; and
                                 equal to the       maintaining the 3-
                                 flow rate          hour block average
                                 operating limit    scrubbing liquid
                                 established        flow rate greater
                                 during the         than or equal to the
                                 performance test.  flow rate operating
                                                    limit established
                                                    during the
                                                    performance test
                                                    (the continuous
                                                    scrubbing liquid
                                                    flow rate measuring
                                                    device must be
                                                    accurate within
                                                    1% and
                                                    the continuous
                                                    pressure drop
                                                    measurement device
                                                    must be accurate
                                                    within 1%).
4. For each lime kiln or lime   a. Maintain and    i. Installing,
 cooler equipped with a FF or    operate the FF     maintaining,
 an ESP that uses a COMS as      or ESP such that   calibrating and
 the monitoring device.          the average        operating a COMS as
                                 opacity for any    required by the
                                 6-minute block     general provisions
                                 period does not    of subpart A of this
                                 exceed 15          part and according
                                 percent.           to PS-1 of appendix
                                                    B to 40 CFR part 60,
                                                    except as specified
                                                    in Sec.
                                                    63.7113(g)(2); and
                                                   ii. Collecting the
                                                    COMS data at a
                                                    frequency of at
                                                    least once every 15
                                                    seconds, determining
                                                    block averages for
                                                    each 6-minute period
                                                    and demonstrating
                                                    for each 6-minute
                                                    block period the
                                                    average opacity does
                                                    not exceed 15
                                                    percent.
7. Each lime kiln equipped      Maintain the 3-    Collecting the dry
 with dry sorbent and/or         hour block dry     sorbent and/or
 activated carbon injection.     sorbent and/or     activated carbon
                                 activated carbon   injection operating
                                 flow rate          data according to
                                 greater than or    all applicable
                                 equal to the       requirements in Sec.
                                 stack flow rate      63.7113 and
                                 operating limit    reducing the data
                                 established        according to Sec.
                                 during the most    63.7113(a);
                                 recent             maintaining the 3-
                                 performance        hour block average
                                 test..             injection flow rate
                                                    greater than or
                                                    equal to the
                                                    injection flow rate
                                                    operating limit
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
8. Each lime kiln equipped      Maintain the 3-    Collecting the
 with a thermal oxidizer.        hour block         thermal oxidizer
                                 average            operating data
                                 combustion         according to all
                                 chamber            applicable
                                 temperature        requirements in Sec.
                                 greater or equal     63.7113 and
                                 to the             reducing the data
                                 combustion         according to Sec.
                                 chamber            63.7113(a);
                                 operating limit    maintaining the 3-
                                 established in     hour block average
                                 the most recent    combustion chamber
                                 performance test.  temperature greater
                                                    than or equal to the
                                                    combustion chamber
                                                    operating limit
                                                    established during
                                                    the performance
                                                    test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[[Page 57765]]



      Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
   [As required in Sec.   63.7131, you must submit each report in the
                  following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
   You must submit a . . .        contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........  a. If there are no    Semiannually
                               deviations from any   according to the
                               emission              requirements in
                               limitations           Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               VE limit) that
                               applies to you, a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               deviations from the
                               emission
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period;
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CMS,        requirements in
                               including any         Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring system,
                               was out-of-control
                               as specified in
                               Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                               a statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period;
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               VE limit) during
                               the reporting
                               period, the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(d);
                              d. If there were      Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CMS,        requirements in
                               including any         Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring system,
                               was out-of-control,
                               as specified in
                               Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(e); and
                              e. Before the         Semiannually
                               relevant compliance   according to the
                               date for your         requirements in
                               source as specified   Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               in Sec.
                               63.7083(e), if you
                               had a startup,
                               shutdown or
                               malfunction during
                               the reporting
                               period and you took
                               actions consistent
                               with your SSMP, the
                               compliance report
                               must include the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.10(d)(5)(i).
                               On and after the
                               relevant compliance
                               date for your
                               source as specified
                               in Sec.
                               63.7083(e), if you
                               had a startup,
                               shutdown or
                               malfunction during
                               the reporting
                               period and you
                               failed to meet an
                               applicable
                               standard, the
                               compliance report
                               must include the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(c)(3).
2. Before the relevant        Actions taken for     By fax or telephone
 compliance date for your      the event.            within 2 working
 source as specified in Sec.                         days after starting
   63.7083(e), an immediate                          actions
 startup, shutdown, and                              inconsistent with
 malfunction report if you                           the SSMP.
 had a startup, shutdown, or
 malfunction during the
 reporting period that is
 not consistent with your
 SSMP.
3. Before the relevant        The information in    By letter within 7
 compliance date for your      Sec.                  working days after
 source as specified in Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).      the end of the
   63.7083(e), an immediate                          event unless you
 startup, shutdown, and                              have made
 malfunction report if you                           alternative
 had a startup, shutdown, or                         arrangements with
 malfunction during the                              the permitting
 reporting period that is                            authority. See Sec.
 not consistent with your                              63.10(d)(5)(ii).
 SSMP.
4. Performance Test Report..  The information       According to the
                               required in Sec.      requirements of
                               63.7(g) and Sec.      Sec.   63.7131.
                               63.7112(h).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 9 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emissions Averaging Emission Limits
 [As required in Sec.   63.7090(d), if you are using emissions averaging
 for either HCl emission limits or mercury emission limits you must meet
    each emission limit in the following table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   You must meet the
                  For . . .                     following emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and     HCl emissions must not
 their associated coolers producing dolomitic   exceed 2.1 lb/ton of
 quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime.  lime produced.
2. Existing straight rotary lime kilns and     HCl emissions must not
 their associated coolers producing high-       exceed 0.047 lb/ton of
 calcium quick lime.                            lime produced.
3. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and    HCl emissions must not
 their associated coolers producing dolomitic   exceed 0.36 lb/ton of
 quick lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime.  lime produced.
4. Existing preheater rotary lime kilns and    HCl emissions must not
 their associated coolers producing high-       exceed 0.087 lb/ton of
 calcium quick lime.                            lime produced.
5. All vertical lime kilns and their           HCl emissions must not
 associated coolers producing dolomitic quick   exceed 0.36 lb/ton of
 lime and/or dead burned dolomitic lime.        lime produced.
6. All vertical lime kilns and their           HCl emissions must not
 associated coolers producing high-calcium      exceed 0.019 lb/ton of
 quick lime.                                    lime produced.

[[Page 57766]]

 
7. Existing lime kilns and their associated    Mercury emissions must
 coolers.                                       not exceed 31 lb/MMton
                                                of lime produced.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
16. Add tables 10 and 11 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows:

           Table 10 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
[As required in Sec.   63.7140, you must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to
                                              the following table.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Am I subject to this
               Citation                 Summary of requirement        requirement?             Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1) through (4)........  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6)....................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7) through (9)........                           No.....................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10) through (14)......  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.7081
                                        Determination.                                    and 63.7142 specify
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          applicability
                                                                                          determination
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................
                                        Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Permit Requirements....  No.....................  Area sources not
                                                                                          subject to this
                                                                                          subpart, except all
                                                                                          sources must make
                                                                                          initial applicability
                                                                                          determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3) and (4)............                           No.....................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Area Source Becomes      Yes....................
                                        Major.
Sec.   63.1(c)(6)....................  Reclassification.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.1(d).......................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.7143.
Sec.   63.3(a) through (c)...........  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1) and (2)............  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3) through (5)........                           No.....................
Sec.   63.4(b) and (c)...............  Circumvention,           Yes....................
                                        Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1) and (2)............  Construction/            Yes....................
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1)....................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(2)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3) and (4)............  Construction Approval,   Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)....................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5(c).......................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1) through (4)........  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e).......................  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1) and (2)............  Approval of              Yes....................
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a).......................  Compliance for           Yes....................
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1) through (5)........  Compliance Dates.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)....................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(1) and (2)............  Compliance Dates.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(3) and (4)............                           No.....................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)....................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(d).......................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i).................  General Duty to          Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Minimize Emissions.      compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for general
                                                                 relevant compliance      duty requirement.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).

[[Page 57767]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to Correct   Yes before the relevant
                                        Malfunctions ASAP.       compliance date for
                                                                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)....................                           No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown        Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Malfunction Plan.        compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), the OM&M
                                                                No on and after the       plan must address
                                                                 relevant compliance      periods of startup and
                                                                 date for your source     shutdown. See Sec.
                                                                 as specified in Sec.     63.7100(d).
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7100. For
                                                                                          periods of startup and
                                                                                          shutdown, see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7090(c).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2) and (3)............  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1) through (3)........  Alternative Standard...  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7100. For
                                                                                          periods of startup and
                                                                                          shutdown, see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7090(c).
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)....................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(h)(3)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(4) through (h)(5)(i)..  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes....................  This requirement only
                                                                                          applies to opacity and
                                                                                          VE performance checks
                                                                                          required in table 5 to
                                                                                          this subpart.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5)(ii) and (iii)......  Opacity/VE Standards...  No.....................  Test durations are
                                                                                          specified in this
                                                                                          subpart; this subpart
                                                                                          takes precedence.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5)(iv)................  Opacity/VE Standards...  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(5)(v).................  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(6)....................  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(7)....................  COM Use................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(8)....................  Compliance with Opacity  Yes....................
                                        and VE.
Sec.   63.6(h)(9)....................  Adjustment of Opacity    Yes....................
                                        Limit.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1) through (14).......  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Exemption from           Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1) through (3)........  Performance Testing      Yes....................  Sec.   63.7110
                                        Requirements.                                     specifies deadlines;
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7112 has
                                                                                          additional specific
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.7(b).......................  Notification...........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(c).......................  Quality Assurance/Test   Yes....................
                                        Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d).......................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                                                 compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7112(b).
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2) through (4)........  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(g).......................  Data Analysis..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(h).......................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)....................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)....................  Monitoring.............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Monitoring.............  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1) through (3)........  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................

[[Page 57768]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  CMS Operation/           Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Maintenance.             compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for OM&M
                                                                 relevant compliance      requirements.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  CMS Spare Parts........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to Develop   Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.        compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), no longer
                                                                No on and after the       required.
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2) and (3)............  CMS Operation/           Yes....................
                                        Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7121.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i) and (ii)........  Cycle Time for COM and   Yes....................  No CEMS are required
                                        CEMS.                                             under this subpart;
                                                                                          see Sec.   63.7113 for
                                                                                          CPMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....................  Minimum COM procedures.  Yes....................  COM not required.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7) and (8)............  CMS Requirements.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(d)(1) and (2)............  Quality Control........  Yes....................  See also Sec.
                                                                                          63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Quality Control........  Yes before the relevant
                                                                 compliance date for
                                                                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(e).......................  Performance Evaluation   Yes....................  See also Sec.
                                        for CMS.                                          63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1) through (5)........  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................
                                        Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  No CEMS required in
                                        Accuracy Test for CEMS.                           this subpart.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1) through (5)........  Data Reduction; Data     No.....................  See data reduction
                                        That Cannot Be Used.                              requirements in Sec.
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7120 and
                                                                                          63.7121.
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Yes....................  See Sec.   63.7130.
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(b).......................  Initial Notifications..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................
                                        Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  New Source Notification  Yes....................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of VE/      Yes....................  This requirement only
                                        Opacity Test.                                     applies to opacity and
                                                                                          VE performance tests
                                                                                          required in table 5 to
                                                                                          this subpart.
                                                                                          Notification not
                                                                                          required for VE/
                                                                                          opacity test under
                                                                                          table 7 to this
                                                                                          subpart.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Not required for
                                        Notifications.                                    operating parameter
                                                                                          monitoring.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1) through (3)........  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4)....................                           No.....................
Sec.   63.9(h)(5) and (6)............  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.9(k).......................  Electronic reporting     Yes....................  Only as specified in
                                        procedures.                                       Sec.   63.9(j).
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................  See Sec.  Sec.
                                        General Requirements.                             63.7131 through
                                                                                          63.7133.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         Yes before the relevant
                                        Occurrence and           compliance date for
                                        Duration of Startups     your source as
                                        and Shutdowns.           specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).

[[Page 57769]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Failures to Meet a       compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        Standard.                your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7132 for
                                                                 relevant compliance      recordkeeping of (1)
                                                                 date for your source     date, time and
                                                                 as specified in Sec.     duration; (2) listing
                                                                 63.7083(e).              of affected source or
                                                                                          equipment, and an
                                                                                          estimate of the
                                                                                          quantity of each
                                                                                          regulated pollutant
                                                                                          emitted over the
                                                                                          standard; and (3)
                                                                                          actions to minimize
                                                                                          emissions and correct
                                                                                          the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance Records....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv) and (v).......  Actions Taken to         Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Minimize Emissions       compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        During SSM.              your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for OM&M
                                                                 relevant compliance      requirements.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xii).  Recordkeeping for CMS..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Records for Relative     No.....................
                                        Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records for              Yes....................
                                        Notification.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Applicability            Yes....................
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  See Sec.   63.7132.
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................
                                        Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Opacity or VE            Yes....................  For the periodic
                                        Observations.                                     monitoring
                                                                                          requirements in table
                                                                                          7 to this subpart,
                                                                                          report according to
                                                                                          Sec.   63.10(d)(3)
                                                                                          only if VE observed
                                                                                          and subsequent visual
                                                                                          opacity test is
                                                                                          required.
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(i)................  Periodic Startup,        Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        Reports.                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7131 for
                                                                 relevant compliance      malfunction reporting
                                                                 date for your source     requirements.
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...............  Immediate Startup,       Yes before the relevant
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for
                                        Reports.                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(e)......................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  See specific
                                                                                          requirements in this
                                                                                          subpart, see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7131.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Waiver for               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
Sec.   63.11(a) and (b)..............  Control Device and Work  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
                                        Practice Requirements.
Sec.   63.12(a) through (c)..........  State Authority and      Yes....................
                                        Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a) through (c)..........  State/Regional           Yes....................
                                        Addresses.
Sec.   63.14(a) and (b)..............  Incorporation by         No.....................
                                        Reference.
Sec.   63.15(a) and (b)..............  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information and
                                        Confidentiality.
Sec.   63.16.........................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 11 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Toxicity Equivalence Factors
  (TEFs) for Human Health Risk Assessment of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-
    dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Dioxin-Like Polychlorinated Biphenyls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Dioxin/Furan                         2005 TEFs \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD............................................               1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD.........................................               1
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD.......................................             0.1

[[Page 57770]]

 
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD.....................................            0.01
OCDD....................................................          0.0003
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF.........................................            0.03
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF.........................................             0.3
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF.....................................            0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF.....................................            0.01
OCDF....................................................          0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA/100/R-10/005, ``Recommended Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs)
  for Human Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
  dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds'', December 2010. (See Sec.   63.14
  for availability.)


[FR Doc. 2024-14692 Filed 7-15-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.