[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 394-433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-23057]



[[Page 393]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime 
Manufacturing Plants; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 2004 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 394]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052; FRL-7551-7]
RIN 2060-AG72


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime 
Manufacturing Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for the lime manufacturing source 
category. The lime manufacturing emission units regulated will include 
lime kilns, lime coolers, and various types of processed stone handling 
(PSH) operations. The EPA has identified the lime manufacturing 
industry as a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions 
including, but not limited to, hydrogen chloride (HCl), antimony, 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, 
nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these substances has been 
demonstrated to cause adverse health effects such as cancer; irritation 
of the lung, skin, and mucus membranes; effects on the central nervous 
system; and kidney damage. The final NESHAP will require all major 
sources subject to the rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting 
the application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 
Implementation of the final NESHAP will reduce non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP emissions from the lime manufacturing industry 
source category by approximately 6.5 tons per year (tpy) and will 
reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 5,900 tpy.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket 
for this action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052 and Docket 
ID No. A-95-41. The official public docket consists of the documents 
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, 
and other information related to this action. All items may not be 
listed under both docket numbers, so interested parties should inspect 
both docket numbers to ensure that they have received all materials 
relevant to the final rule. The official public docket is available for 
public viewing at the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-
102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air 
Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning 
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or 
local agency representative. For information concerning analyses 
performed in developing the final NESHAP, contact Keith Barnett, U.S. 
EPA, Emission Standards Division, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals 
Group, C504-05, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919) 
541-5605, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Docket. The EPA has established an official 
public docket for this action including both Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0052 and Docket ID No. A-95-41. The official public docket consists of 
the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public 
comments received, and other information related to this action. All 
items may not be listed under both docket numbers, so interested 
parties should inspect both docket numbers to ensure that they have 
received all materials relevant to the final rule. Although a part of 
the official public docket, the public docket does not include 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. The docket is a dynamic file because 
information is added throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing 
system is intended to allow members of the public and industries 
involved to easily identify and locate documents so that they can 
effectively participate in the rulemaking process. Along with the 
proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles, the contents of 
the docket, excluding interagency review materials, will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).) The regulatory text and other materials related 
to this rulemaking are available for review in the docket, or copies 
may be mailed from the Air Docket on request by calling (202) 566-1742. 
A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials. 
Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to access the index of the contents of the 
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public 
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
this document.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's final NESHAP will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for final rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Examples of regulated
          Category                NAICS                entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      32741  Commercial lime
                                              manufacturing plants.
                                      33111  Captive lime manufacturing
                                              plants at iron and steel
                                              mills.
                                       3314  Captive lime manufacturing
                                              plants at nonferrous metal
                                              production facilities.

[[Page 395]]

 
                                     327125  Producers of dead-burned
                                              dolomite (Non-clay
                                              refractory manufacturing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.7081 of the 
final NESHAP. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Judicial Review. The NESHAP for Lime Manufacturing were proposed in 
December 20, 2002 (67 FR 78046). This action announces EPA's final 
decisions on the NESHAP. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the final NESHAP is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by March 5, 2004. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only 
an objection to a rule or procedure raised with reasonable specificity 
during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial 
review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 
established by the final NESHAP may not be challenged separately in any 
civil or criminal proceeding brought to enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Introduction
    A. What Is the Purpose of the Final NESHAP?
    B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    D. How Was the Final NESHAP Developed?
    E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime 
Manufacturing Industry?
    F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
    G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime 
Manufacturing Plant?
II. Summary of the Final NESHAP
    A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Final 
NESHAP?
    B. How Do We Define the Affected Source and What Emissions Units 
Are Included?
    C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Final NESHAP?
    D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
    E. When Must I Comply With the Final NESHAP?
    F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Final 
NESHAP?
    G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance 
With the Final NESHAP?
    H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major 
Source and Thus Subject to the Final NESHAP?
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?
    B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    C. What Are the Water Impacts?
    D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
    E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
    F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
V. Responses To Major Comments
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of the Final NESHAP?

    The purpose of the final NESHAP is to protect the public health by 
reducing emissions of HAP from lime manufacturing plants.

B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. We listed 
Lime Manufacturing in the category of major sources on July 16, 1992 
(57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential 
to emit, considering controls, 10 tpy or more of any one HAP or 25 tpy 
or more of any combination of HAP.

C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires NESHAP to reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through the application of the best system of emission reduction which 
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) 
the Administrator of EPA determines has been adequately demonstrated. 
This level of control is commonly referred to as MACT.
    The CAA further provides that MACT standards must attain at least a 
minimum level of stringency, known as the MACT floor. The MACT floor is 
the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under 
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that 
the standard is set at a level that assures that all major sources 
achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that already 
achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each 
source category or subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot 
be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in 
practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for 
existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, 
but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation 
achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the 
category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for 
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources) for which the 
Agency has emissions information.
    In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on the consideration of cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any health and environmental impacts, and energy 
requirements.

D. How Was the Final NESHAP Developed?

    We used several resources to develop the final NESHAP, including 
questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site 
surveys of lime manufacturing facilities, operating and new source 
review permits, permit applications, and comments on the proposed rule. 
We researched the relevant technical literature and existing State and 
Federal regulations and

[[Page 396]]

consulted and met with representatives of the lime manufacturing 
industry, State and local representatives of air pollution agencies, 
Federal agency representatives (e.g., United States Geological Survey) 
and emission control and emissions measurement device vendors in 
developing the final NESHAP. We also conducted an extensive emissions 
test program. Industry representatives provided emissions test data, 
arranged site surveys of lime manufacturing plants, participated in the 
emissions test program, reviewed draft questionnaires, provided 
information about their manufacturing processes and air pollution 
control technologies, and identified technical and regulatory issues. 
State representatives provided existing emissions test data, copies of 
permits and other information.

E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime 
Manufacturing Industry?

    The HAP emitted by lime manufacturing facilities include, but are 
not limited to, HCl, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. Exposure to these 
compounds has been demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when 
present in concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient 
air.
    We have detailed data on each of the currently operating facilities 
for emissions of HCl. Human exposures to ambient levels of HCl 
resulting from lime manufacturing facilities' emissions were estimated 
by industry as part of the risk assessment they conducted for purposes 
of demonstrating, pursuant to section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, that HCl 
emissions from lime kilns are below the threshold level of adverse 
effects, within an ample margin of safety.
    We do not have the type of current detailed data on each of the 
facilities that will be covered by the final NESHAP, and the people 
living around the facilities, that will be necessary to conduct an 
analysis to determine the actual population exposures to the metals HAP 
emitted from these facilities and the potential for resultant health 
effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the adverse 
health effects described below occur in the populations surrounding 
these facilities. However, to the extent the adverse effects do occur, 
the final NESHAP will reduce emissions and subsequent exposures.
    The HAP that will be controlled with the final NESHAP are 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects, including chronic 
health disorders (e.g., irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus 
membranes; effects on the central nervous system; cancer; and damage to 
the kidneys), and acute health disorders (e.g., lung irritation and 
congestion, alimentary effects such as nausea and vomiting, and effects 
on the kidney and central nervous system). We have classified three of 
the HAP--arsenic, chromium, and nickel--as human carcinogens and three 
others--beryllium, cadmium, and lead--as probable human carcinogens.

F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?

    There are approximately 70 commercial and 40 captive lime 
manufacturing plants in the U.S., not including captive lime 
manufacturing operations at pulp and paper production facilities. About 
30 of the captive plants in the U.S. produce lime that is used in the 
beet sugar manufacturing process, but captive lime manufacturing plants 
are also found at steel, other metals, and magnesia production 
facilities. Lime is produced in about 35 States and Puerto Rico by 
about 47 companies, which include commercial and captive producers 
(except for lime manufacturing plants at pulp and paper production 
facilities), and those plants which produce lime hydrate only.

G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime Manufacturing 
Plant?

    There are many synonyms for lime, the main ones being quicklime and 
its chemical name, calcium oxide. High calcium lime consists primarily 
of calcium oxide, and dolomitic lime consists of both calcium and 
magnesium oxides. Lime is produced via the calcination of high calcium 
limestone (calcium carbonate) or other highly calcareous materials such 
as aragonite, chalk, coral, marble, and shell; or via the calcination 
of dolomitic limestone. Calcination occurs in a high temperature 
furnace called a kiln, where lime is produced by heating the limestone 
to about 2000[deg] F, driving off carbon dioxide in the process. Dead-
burned dolomite is a type of dolomitic lime produced to obtain 
refractory characteristics in the lime.
    The kiln is the heart of the lime manufacturing plant, where 
various fossil fuels (such as coal, petroleum coke, natural gas, and 
fuel oil) are combusted to produce the heat needed for calcination. 
There are five different types of kilns: rotary, vertical, double-shaft 
vertical, rotary hearth, and fluidized bed. The most popular is the 
rotary kiln, but the double-shaft vertical kiln is an emerging new kiln 
technology gaining in acceptance because of its energy efficiency. 
Rotary kilns may also have preheaters associated with them to improve 
energy efficiency. As discussed further in this preamble, additional 
energy efficiency is obtained by routing exhaust from the lime cooler 
to the kiln, a common practice. Emissions from lime kilns include, but 
are not limited to, metallic HAP, HCl, PM, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides, and carbon dioxide. These emissions predominately originate 
from compounds in the limestone feed material and fuels (e.g., metals, 
sulfur, chlorine) and are formed from the combustion of fuels and the 
heating of feed material in the kiln.
    All types of kilns use external equipment to cool the lime product, 
except vertical (including double-shaft) kilns, where the cooling zone 
is part of the kiln. Ambient air is most often used to cool the lime 
(although a few use water as the heat transfer medium), and typically 
all of the heated air stream exiting the cooler goes to the kiln to be 
used as combustion air for the kiln. The exception to this is the grate 
cooler, where more airflow is generated than is needed for kiln 
combustion, and consequently a portion (about 40 percent) of the grate 
cooler exhaust is vented to the atmosphere. We estimate that there are 
about five to ten kilns in the U.S. that use grate coolers. The 
emissions from grate coolers include the lime dust (PM) and the trace 
metallic HAP found in the lime dust.
    Lime manufacturing plants may also produce hydrated lime (also 
called calcium hydroxide) from some of the calcium oxide (or dolomitic 
lime) produced. Hydrated lime is produced in a hydrator via the 
chemical reaction of calcium oxide (or magnesium oxide) and water. The 
hydration process is exothermic, and part of the water in the reaction 
chamber is converted to steam. A wet scrubber is integrated with the 
hydrator to capture the lime (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide) 
particles carried in the gas steam, with the scrubber water recycled 
back to the hydration chamber. The emissions from the hydrator are the 
PM comprised of lime and hydrated lime.
    Operations that prepare the feed materials and fuels for the kiln 
and process the lime product for shipment or further on-site use are 
found throughout a lime manufacturing plant. The equipment includes 
grinding mills, crushers, storage bins, conveying systems (such as 
bucket elevator, belt conveyors), bagging systems, bulk loading or 
unloading systems, and screening operations. The emissions from these 
operations include limestone

[[Page 397]]

and lime dust (PM) and the trace metallic HAP found in the dust.

II. Summary of the Final NESHAP

A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?

    The final NESHAP will regulate 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. However, lime 
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 
factories are not subject to the final NESHAP. Other captive lime 
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills 
and magnesia production facilities, will be subject to the final 
NESHAP. See 67 FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations. 
We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a lime 
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous 
material by calcination. However, we specifically exclude lime kilns 
that use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening 
processes as the feedstock. Lime product means the product of the lime 
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and 
dead-burned dolomite.

B. How Do We Define the Affected Source and What Emissions Units Are 
Included?

    The final NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: each lime 
kiln and its associated cooler, each individual PSH system. The 
individual types of emission units in a PSH system are conveying system 
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening 
operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors--if they follow the 
processed stone storage bin or storage pile in the sequence of PSH 
operations. The materials processing operations (MPO) associated with 
lime products (such as quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust 
handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing operations, and 
fuels are not subject to today's final NESHAP. Processed stone handling 
operations are further distinguished in the final NESHAP as follows: 
(1) Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, (2) whether 
their emissions are fugitive emissions, (3) whether their emissions are 
vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial 
enclosure, and/or (4) whether the source is enclosed in a building. 
Finally, lime hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not 
included under the definition of affected source under the final 
NESHAP.

C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Final NESHAP?

    The final NESHAP establishes PM emission limits for lime kilns, 
coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. Particulate matter will be 
measured solely as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile 
metal HAP. (Particulate matter of course is not itself a HAP, but is a 
typical and permissible surrogate for HAP metals. See National Lime 
Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637-40 (D.C. Cir., 2000). The final NESHAP 
also regulate opacity or visible emissions from most of the PSH 
operations, with opacity also serving as a surrogate for non-volatile 
and semi-volatile HAP metals.

D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?

Emission Limits
    The PM emission limit for the existing kilns and coolers is 0.12 
pounds PM per ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using dry air 
pollution control systems prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns that 
have installed and 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, they would become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf PM 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 applied to the combined emissions of all the kilns and 
coolers (assuming the cooler(s) has a separate exhaust vent to the 
atmosphere) at the lime manufacturing plant. In other words, the sum of 
the PM emissions from all of the kilns and coolers at the lime 
manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the production rates of the 
kilns at the existing lime manufacturing plant, will be used to 
determine compliance with the appropriate emission limit for kilns and 
coolers. If the lime manufacturing plant has both new and existing 
kilns and coolers, then the emission limit will 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. Kilns that are 
required to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit must meet that limit 
individually, and may not be included in any averaging calculations.
    Emissions from PSH operations that are vented through a stack will 
be subject to a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/
dscm) PM and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from PSH operations 
that are controlled by wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g/dscm but 
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 discussed above. 
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 (FF) 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. Because the opacity 
requirement for PSH operations is used as an indicator that a control 
device is functioning properly, it is not appropriate, or meaningful, 
to average the opacity readings from multiple PSH operations. The final 
rule does not allow averaging of PSH operations.
    We are not regulating HCl emissions from lime kilns in the final 
NESHAP. Under the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we have 
determined that no further control is necessary because HCl is a 
``health threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns 
are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. See 
generally, 67 FR 78054-057. As explained there, the risk analysis 
sought to assure that emissions from every source in the category 
result in exposures less than the threshold level even for an 
individual exposed at the upper end of the exposure distribution. The 
upper end of the exposure distribution is calculated using the ``high 
end exposure estimate,'' defined as a plausible estimate of individual 
exposure for those persons at the upper end of the exposure 
distribution, conceptually above the 90th percentile, but not higher 
than the individual in the population who has the highest exposure. We 
believe that assuring protection to persons at the upper end of the 
exposure distribution is consistent with

[[Page 398]]

the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement in section 112(d)(4).
    In the proposed rule, we published the results of the risk analysis 
on which we based this decision. More information on the risk analysis 
may be found in the published proposed rule (67 FR 78054-78057) and in 
the docket. We received only one comment on our risk analysis.
    We also are not establishing a limit for mercury emissions from 
lime kilns. The only control technique would reflect control of the raw 
materials and/or fossil fuels. This control is not duplicable or 
replicable. We also determined that an emission limit for mercury based 
on a beyond-the-MACT-floor option is not justified after consideration 
of the cost, energy, and non-air environmental impacts. See 67 FR 78057 
for additional discussion. We received no adverse comments on this 
aspect of the rule as proposed.
Operating Limits
    For lime kilns that use a wet scrubber PM control device, you are 
required to maintain the 3-hour block average gas stream pressure drop 
across the scrubber and the 3-hour block average scrubber liquid flow 
rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were 
established during the PM performance test.
    For kilns using a FF or electrostatic precipitator (ESP) PM control 
device, you must monitor opacity (as an operating limit) with a 
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). You are required to 
install and operate the COMS in accordance with Performance 
Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and maintain the 
opacity level of the lime kiln exhaust at or below 15 percent for each 
6-minute block period. Facilities that installed COMS on or before 
February 6, 2001, should continue to meet the requirements in effect in 
40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, at the time of COMS installation unless 
specifically required to re-certify the COMS by their permitting 
authority.
    As an alternative to a COMS, lime kilns that use ESP or FF PM 
controls can elect to monitor PM levels with a PM detector that meets 
the requirements in Sec.  63.7113(e) of the final rule. You must 
maintain and operate the ESP or FF such that the PM detector alarm is 
not activated, and the alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 
percent of the operating time in each 6-month period.
    For lime kilns that use a FF PM control device, you may install, 
maintain and operate a bag leak detection system (BLDS) as an 
alternative to a COMS or PM detector. The FF must be operated and 
maintained so that the BLDS alarm is not activated, and an alarm 
condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time 
in each 6-month period. The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer 
to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) 
or less.
    For PSH operation emission points subject to a PM emission limit 
and controlled by a wet scrubber, you are required to collect and 
record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the 
scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test. You are 
required to continuously maintain the 3-hour average gas stream 
pressure drop across the scrubber and the 3-hour average scrubber 
liquid flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that 
were established during the PM performance test.
    You are required to prepare a written operations, maintenance, and 
monitoring (OM&M) plan to cover all affected emission units. The plan 
must include procedures for proper operation and maintenance of each 
emission unit and its air pollution control device(s); procedures for 
monitoring and proper operation of monitoring systems in order to meet 
the emission limits and operating limits; standard procedures for the 
use of a BLDS and PM detector; and corrective actions to be taken when 
there is either a deviation from operating limits, or when PM detector 
or BLDS alarms indicate corrective action is necessary.

E. When Must I Comply With the Final NESHAP?

    The compliance date for existing affected sources is January 5, 
2004. (Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit existing, 
air pollution control equipment.) A new affected source (i.e., a kiln 
or PSH system for which construction or reconstruction commenced after 
December 20, 2002) must be in compliance upon initial startup or 
January 5, 2007, whichever is later.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Final NESHAP?

Kiln and Coolers
    For the kiln and cooler PM emission limit, you must conduct a PM 
emissions test on the exhaust of each kiln at the lime manufacturing 
plant and measure the stone feed rate to each kiln during the test. 
Each individual kiln must meet their applicable PM emission limit 
(0.10, 0.12, or 0.60 lb/tsf). Alternately, kilns subject to the 0.10 
(new kilns) or 0.12 (existing kilns) lb/tsf PM emission limits are in 
compliance if the sum of the emissions from these kilns at the lime 
manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the stone feed rates 
entering each of these kilns, do not exceed the applicable PM emission 
limit, or if the facility has both new and existing kilns, it must not 
exceed an average of the 0.12 and 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limits 
weighted by individual kiln throughput. Kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/
tsf PM emission limit can not be included in any averaging scheme. If 
you have a lime cooler(s) that has a separate exhaust to the 
atmosphere, you must conduct a PM test on the cooler's exhaust 
concurrently with the kiln PM test, and add the cooler emissions to the 
appropriate kiln emissions. For kilns with a wet scrubber, you must 
collect and record the applicable operating parameters during the PM 
performance test and then establish the operating limits based on those 
data.
Processed Stone Handling Operations
    For PSH operations with stacks that are subject to PM emission 
limits, you are required to conduct a PM emissions test on each stack 
exhaust, and the stack emissions must not exceed the emission limit of 
0.05 g/dscm. For PSH operations with stack opacity limits, you are 
required to conduct a 3-hour test on the exhaust in accordance with 
Method 9 in Appendix B of 40 CFR part 60, and each of the 30 
consecutive, 6-minute opacity averages must not exceed 7 percent. The 
PSH operations controlled using wet scrubbers do not have an opacity 
limit, but you are required to collect and record the wet scrubber 
operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish 
the applicable operating limits based on those data.
    For PSH operations with fugitive emissions, you are required to 
conduct a Method 9 test, and each of the consecutive 6-minute opacity 
averages must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. These Method 9 
tests are for 3 hours, but the test duration may be reduced to 1 hour 
if certain criteria are met. Lastly, Method 9 tests or visible 
emissions checks may be performed on PSH operations inside of 
buildings, but additional lighting, improved access to equipment, and 
temporary installation of contrasting backgrounds may be needed. For 
additional guidance, see page 116 of the ``Regulatory and Inspection 
Manual for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants,'' EPA report 305-B-
97-008, November 1997.

[[Page 399]]

G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance With 
the Final NESHAP?

General
    You are required to install, operate, and maintain each required 
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) such that the CPMS 
completes a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-
minute period. The CPMS will be required to have valid data from at 
least three equally spaced data values for that hour during periods 
that it is not out of control according to your OM&M plan. To calculate 
the block average for each 3-hour averaging period, you must have at 
least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only 
hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-
of-control periods). When required, the 3-hour block average value for 
each operating parameter must be calculated as the average of each set 
of three successive 1-hour average values.
    You are required to develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the general 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
Kilns and Coolers
    For kilns controlled by a wet scrubber, you are required to 
maintain the 3-hour block average of the exhaust gas stream pressure 
drop across the wet scrubber greater than, or equal to, the pressure 
drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance 
test. You are also required to maintain the 3-hour block average of the 
scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate 
operating limit established during the most recent performance test.
    Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from an ESP with a PM 
detector in lieu of monitoring opacity are required to 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 operating 
time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm sounds and the owner or 
operator initiates corrective actions (per the OM&M plan) within 1 hour 
of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of 
the ESP demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm 
time will be counted. The sensor on the PM detection system must 
provide an output of relative PM emissions. The PM detection system 
must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an 
increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The PM 
detection systems are required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and 
maintained according to the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations.
    Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from a FF with a BLDS or PM 
detector in lieu of monitoring opacity are required to maintain and 
operate the FF such that the BLDS or PM detector alarm is not 
activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent 
of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm sounds 
and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions (per the OM&M 
plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. 
If inspection of the FF demonstrates that no corrective actions are 
necessary, no alarm time will be counted. The sensor on the BLDS is 
required to provide an output of relative PM emissions. The BLDS is 
required to have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects 
an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The 
BLDS is required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained in 
accordance with the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations.
    Standard operating procedures for the BLDS and PM detection systems 
must be incorporated into the OM&M plan. We recommend that for 
electrodynamic (or other similar technology) BLDS, the standard 
operating procedures include concepts from EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This 
document may be found on the world wide web at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
    For kilns and lime coolers monitored with a COMS, you are required 
to maintain each 6-minute block average opacity level at or below 15 
percent opacity. For COMS installed after February 6, 2001, the COMS 
must be installed and operated in accordance with PS-1, 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix B. Facilities that installed COMS on or before February 6, 
2001, should continue to meet the requirements in effect in 40 CFR part 
60, Appendix B, at the time of COMS installation unless specifically 
required to re-certify the COMS by their permitting authority.
Processed Stone Handling Operations
    For stack emissions from PSH operations which are controlled by a 
wet scrubber, you are required to maintain the 3-hour average exhaust 
gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than, or equal 
to, the pressure drop operating limit established during the most 
recent PM performance test. You are required to also maintain the 3-
hour average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than, or equal to, the 
flow rate operating limit established during the most recent PM 
performance test.
    For PSH operations subject to opacity limitations that do not use a 
wet scrubber control device, you are required to periodically 
demonstrate compliance as follows. You must conduct a monthly 1-minute 
visible emissions check of each emissions unit in the affected source. 
If no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests 
for any emission unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from 
monthly to semiannually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions 
are observed during any semiannual test, you must resume testing of 
that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until 
no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If 
no visible emissions are observed during the semiannual test for any 
emissions unit, you may decrease the frequency of testing from 
semiannually to annually for that emissions unit. If visible emissions 
are observed during any annual test, you must resume visible emissions 
testing of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that 
schedule until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive 
monthly tests.
    If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions 
check, you must conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in accordance with 
Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test is 
required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible 
emissions, and the 6-minute opacity reading must not exceed the 
applicable opacity limit.

H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major Source 
and Thus Subject to the Final NESHAP?

    The final NESHAP apply to lime manufacturing plants that are major 
sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major sources. 
Each lime facility owner/operator must determine whether their plant is 
a major or area source since this determines whether the lime 
manufacturing plant is an affected source under the final NESHAP. 
Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source as a ``stationary source 
or group of stationary sources located within a contiguous area and 
under common control that emits or has the potential to emit 
considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons/yr or more of any HAP 
or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' This definition 
requires evaluation of the facility's potential to emit all HAP from

[[Page 400]]

all emission sources in making a determination of whether the source is 
major or area. However, based on our data analysis, HCl is most likely 
the HAP that will account for the largest quantity of HAP emissions 
from a lime manufacturing plant. Although lime manufacturing plants 
emit HAP metals from most of the emission units at the plant site and 
organic HAP from the kiln, our analysis indicates that most likely the 
metal and organic HAP emissions will each be well below the 10 tpy 
criteria.
    We are requiring that all lime manufacturing facilities potentially 
subject to the final NESHAP demonstrate, with an emissions test, that 
they emit less than 10 tpy of HCl if they wish to claim area source 
status. We are allowing three HCl test methods to be used. These are 
EPA Method 320 or 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, or ASTM Method D 
6735-01. If ASTM Method D 6735-01 is used, we require that the paired-
train option in section 11.2.6 and the post-test analyte spike option 
in section 11.2.7 be used.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

    We proposed a PM standard (as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP 
metals) of 0.12 lb/tsf reflecting the performance of dry pollution 
control systems (baghouses). We also solicited comment on having a 
separate PM standard of 0.60 lb/tsf for kilns controlled with wet 
scrubbers. In the final rule, we have decided to adopt these two 
different standards for PM emissions from existing lime kilns. We are 
also indicating that existing kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM 
emission limit are not to be included in any averaging scheme for 
demonstrating compliance with a PM standard.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required facilities using wet scrubbers 
to monitor scrubber pressure drop and liquid flow rate. We have written 
the final NESHAP to explicitly state that alternative monitoring 
procedures are allowed under the procedures described in 40 CFR 
63.8(f). However, we do not delegate that authority.
    The proposed NESHAP stated that you must install, operate, and 
maintain COMS as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General 
Provisions, and according to PS-1 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. We 
have stated in the rule that COMS installed, relocated, or 
substantially refurbished after February 6, 2001, must meet the 
requirements of PS-1 as revised on August 10, 2000. Any COMS installed 
on or before February 6, 2001, should continue to meet the requirements 
in effect at the time of installation unless specifically required by 
the local regulatory agency to re-certify the COMS in question.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required you to monitor the performance 
of FF with either a COMS or a PM detector. In the final NESHAP, we are 
allowing existing facilities to monitor FF performance using daily EPA 
Method 9, in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60, visible emission readings if 
the facility has a positive pressure FF with multiple stacks, or if it 
is infeasible to install a COMS in accordance with PS-1 in Appendix B 
to 40 CFR part 60.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we allowed three alternatives for 
monitoring ESP performance. These were a COMS, a PM detector, or 
monitoring ESP voltage and current. In the final NESHAP, we are 
allowing only two alternatives, a COMS or a PM detector. There are no 
requirements to establish ESP voltage and current operating limits.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we specified that EPA Method 9 in Appendix 
A to 40 CFR part 60 should be used to determine opacity from fugitive 
emissions. We have retained this requirement in the final NESHAP, but 
we have added additional requirements on how EPA method 9 in Appendix A 
to 40 CFR part 60 should be implemented to determine fugitive visible 
emissions. This language was taken directly from 40 CFR 60.675(c)(1).
    In the proposed NESHAP, Sec.  63.7120(b) could be interpreted to 
imply that PSH operations must be continuously monitored. In the final 
NESHAP, PSH operations are subject to monthly (not continuous) visible 
emission testing.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required that lime kiln emission testing 
be conducted at the highest production level reasonably expected to 
occur. In the final NESHAP, we require that lime kilns be tested under 
representative operating conditions.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required reporting of deviations from 
operating, visible emissions, and opacity limits, including those 
deviations that occur during periods of startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction. In the final NESHAP, we require that reports are to be 
made in accordance with 40 CFR 63.10(d).
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required testing of all kilns in order 
to claim area source status. In the final NESHAP, we have included a 
provision that allows the permitting authority to determine if idled 
kilns must be tested, and also to determine whether all kilns that use 
identical feed materials, fuels, and emission controls must still all 
be tested.
    In the proposed NESHAP, the raw material storage bin was the first 
emission unit in the sequence of lime manufacturing that was part of 
the affected source. Materials processing operations between the 
storage bin and the kiln were also covered. In the final NESHAP, 
material stockpiles prior to the processed stone storage bin are not 
covered, open processed stone piles are not covered, storage bins are 
defined as manmade enclosures, and use the term processed stone 
handling operations instead of materials processing operations.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we included as an affected source lime 
kilns that produced lime product from any calcareous substance. In the 
final NESHAP, we have excluded lime kilns that produce lime from water 
softening sludge that contain calcium carbonate.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we excluded materials handling operations 
associated with lime product. In the final NESHAP, we have specifically 
stated that nuisance dust collectors are part of lime product handling 
systems and, therefore, are not part of the affected source.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we required that facilities use rolling 3-
hour averages to show compliance with wet scrubber operating limits. We 
noted that in the proposed rule, we did not clearly state how to 
calculate the rolling average. Based on compliance requirements of 
other NESHAP, we determined that a rolling average was not necessary to 
ensure compliance, but did increase the complexity of the average 
calculation and recordkeeping process. Therefore, in the final NESHAP, 
we require block 3-hour averages instead of rolling 3-hour averages, 
which is consistent with the requirement to use block averaging 
required for ESP that choose to monitor using COM.
    In the proposed NESHAP, we allowed averaging among all lime kilns 
and coolers at existing sources, and all new lime kilns and coolers at 
new sources, but did not allow averaging of existing and new lime kilns 
and coolers together. In addition, the averaging provisions and 
equations applied whether or not the facility desired to average. We 
have written the final NESHAP to state that each individual new lime 
kiln and its associated cooler must meet a 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission 
limit, and each individual existing lime kilns and its associated 
cooler must meet a 0.12 lb/tsf PM emission limit. Averaging is 
optional, so that if each individual kiln meets its emission limit, 
averaging is not required. The exception to this is for existing kilns 
which are subject to the

[[Page 401]]

0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit. These kilns are not eligible for 
averaging.
    If the lime manufacturing plant has multiple kilns and wants to 
average kilns together to meet the PM emission limit, this is allowed 
(with one limitation discussed below, and the exception for kilns 
subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit noted above) and the 
averaging equations in the final rule must be used. However, in no case 
may a new kiln exceed a 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit. Where there are 
both new and existing lime kilns at a facility, then the PM emission 
limit will be an average of the existing and new kiln PM emissions 
limits, weighted by the annual actual production rates of the 
individual kilns. We believe that allowing averaging is appropriate 
here because of the identity of the units (kilns and coolers in all 
cases), and the emissions (same HAP in same type of emissions, since 
all emissions result from kilns and coolers). Averaged emissions under 
these circumstances would, thus, still reflect MACT for the affected 
source. The averaging provisions are included in the final NESHAP as a 
result of the recommendations of the Small Business Advocacy Panel 
convened as required by section 609(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (RFA) and improves the compliance flexibility options for small 
businesses, which is the intent of the RFA.
    The only limitation we are requiring on averaging is that any new 
kiln, when considered alone, must meet the 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit. 
We do not consider this to be a significant limitation because the most 
likely averaging scenario involving new and existing kilns will be a 
facility that erects a new kiln that is designed to meet a level below 
the 0.10 lb/tsf emission limit. It is also appropriate to prevent a 
situation where a new kiln could be erected that did not perform at the 
same level as the best controlled facility.
    We are not allowing kilns equipped with wet scrubbers for PM 
emissions control to be eligible for averaging. As explained more fully 
below, we are establishing a separate PM emissions standard for kilns 
equipped with wet scrubbers to avoid potentially forcing wet scrubbers 
to be replaced with dry systems, which could lead to less control of 
SO2 emissions and atmospheric formation of sulfate PM (a 
type of PM2.5). These considerations, however, do not justify allowing 
averaging between kilns with such large differences in PM emission 
limits. Our intent in allowing averaging was to avoid the situation 
where some kilns at a facility were slightly above the 0.12 lb/tsf 
emission limit would have to completely replace existing PM controls 
for only a slight reduction on overall PM emissions. If we were to 
allow averaging where some of the kilns only have to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf 
emission limit, it could result in some kilns being allowed to emit PM 
at levels significantly above the levels that have been determined to 
be best control.
    We are not allowing averaging for other emission sources. Processed 
stone handling operations that exhaust through stacks have an emission 
limit of 0.50 g/dscm. We did not see an advantage to allowing averaging 
for these operations because they are small compared to the PM 
emissions for the lime kilns. The other emission limits in the final 
rule are for PSH operations, and the limits are expressed as opacity. 
As stated previously, averaging opacity limits is not appropriate. No 
commenter requested averaging for PSH operations.
    In the proposed rule, we defined the affected source as the 
collection of all of the lime kilns, lime coolers and materials 
processing operations. We noted that this language could be 
misinterpreted to imply that a new lime kiln erected at an existing 
lime manufacturing plant would be considered existing, not new. In the 
final NESHAP, we have written the language in 40 CFR 63.7082 to make 
our intent clear. New lime kilns, whether or not they are built at an 
existing lime manufacturing plant, must meet the PM emission limits for 
new sources.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

    We considered water, solid waste, and energy impacts as part of our 
so-called beyond-the-floor analysis pursuant to section 112(d)(2) of 
the CAA, which requires consideration of ``non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts and energy requirements,'' as well as ``the cost 
of achieving such emissions reduction,'' in deciding whether or not to 
adopt standards more stringent than the MACT floor. The following 
section summarize portions of these analyses.

A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Final NESHAP?

    There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S., 
not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About 
30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing 
facilities which are not subject to the final rule. We estimate that 70 
percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants will be major 
sources co-located with major sources, or part of major sources, and, 
thus, about 56 lime manufacturing plants will be subject to the final 
rule. The other 24 facilities will incur a small, one-time cost for HCl 
testing to demonstrate that they are area sources.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    We estimate that all sources (not including lime manufacturing 
plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source 
category collectively emit approximately 10,720 tpy of HAP. These HAP 
estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals from existing sources 
and projected new sources over the next 5 years. We estimate that the 
final NESHAP will reduce HAP metals emissions from the lime 
manufacturing source category by about 3.6 tpy, and will reduce HCl 
emissions by about 235 tpy. In addition, we estimate that the final 
NESHAP will reduce PM emissions by about 3,880 tpy from a baseline 
level of 16,730 tpy, and the final NESHAP will reduce SO2 
emissions by about 6,150 tpy from a baseline of 34,650 tpy. The roughly 
14 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the 
projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply 
with the final PM standards.
    Table 1 to this preamble summarizes the baseline emissions and 
emissions reductions.

       Table 1.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
                                              Manufacturing Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    HAP metals
                    Emissions                        PM  (tpy)         (tpy)        HCl  (tpy)      SO2  (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources............          13,588            13.5           8,541          30,783
Baseline emissions--new sources.................           3,140             2.8           2,161           3,868
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 402]]

 
    Total baseline emissions....................          16,728            16.3          10,702          34,651
================================================================================================================
Emissions reductions--existing sources..........           3,786             3.4             235           6,147
Emissions reductions--new sources...............              96             0.2               0               0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total emissions reductions..................           3,882             3.6             235           6,147
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final NESHAP will also result in some offsetting emissions 
increases. These increases are due to additional emissions that will 
occur at electricity generating facilities as a result of the need to 
generate the electricity required to operate the control equipment, and 
power the fans necessary to overcome control device pressure drop. We 
estimate these emission increases to be 0.3 tpy for PM, 12.4 tpy for 
sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 6.1 tpy for nitrogen oxides 
(NOX). It should be noted that these emissions increases are 
insignificant when compared to the emissions decreases that result from 
the final NESHAP.

C. What Are the Water Impacts?

    We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to 
increase by about 1,250 million gallons per year from current levels as 
a result of the final rule. This estimate is based on the assumption 
that sources will upgrade or replace about 30 percent of the existing 
wet scrubbers to comply with the PM standards, and these new or 
upgraded scrubbers will require a higher water flow rate that the 
scrubbers currently installed. For new sources, we expect no additional 
water consumption, as we do not expect new sources to install wet 
scrubbers for PM control.

D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?

    As a result of the final rule, solid waste will be generated as 
additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We 
estimate that about 3,880 tpy of additional solid waste will be 
generated as a result of today's final rule. This estimate does not 
include consideration that some of this will most likely be recycled 
directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material 
(agricultural lime).

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by 
about 4.0 million kilowatt-hours/yr (kWh/yr) as a result of the final 
rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will 
replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet 
scrubbers (that require more electricity). For new sources, we expect 
an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/yr as a 
result of the final rule. This electricity demand is associated with 
complying with the PM standards for new sources.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The estimated total national capital cost of today's final rule is 
$28.2 million. This capital cost applies to projected new and existing 
sources and includes the cost to purchase and install emissions control 
equipment (e.g., existing PM control equipment upgrades); monitoring 
equipment; the costs of initial performance tests; and emissions tests 
to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source, and, 
hence subject to the final standards.
    The estimated annualized costs of the final NESHAP are $18.0 
million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs 
of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance 
costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and 
annualized costs of the initial emissions testing.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    It should be noted that the economic impacts and social costs 
described below slightly overestimate the impacts for today's action, 
for they reflect the higher cost estimates ($22.4 million annualized 
costs) associated with the proposed rule.
    The results of our economic impact analysis indicate the average 
price per ton for lime will increase by 2.1 percent (or $1.17 per 
metric ton) as a result of the final standards for lime manufacturers. 
Overall lime production is projected to decrease by 1.8 percent as a 
result of the final standards. Because of the uncertainty of control 
cost information for large firms, we accounted for these firms as a 
single aggregate firm in the economic model, so it is not plausible to 
estimate closures for large firms. However, among the 19 small firms in 
this industry, we project that two firms are at risk for closure.
    Based on the market analysis, we project the annual social costs of 
the final rule to be $20.2 million. As a result of higher prices and 
lower consumption levels, we project the consumers of lime (both 
domestic and foreign) will lose $19.7 million annually, while domestic 
producer surplus will decline by $0.8 million. Foreign producers will 
gain as a result of the final rule with profit increasing by $0.2 
million. For more information regarding the economic impacts, consult 
the economic impact analysis in the docket for the final rule.

V. Responses to Major Comments

    This section presents a summary of responses to major comments. A 
summary of all comments received and our responses to those comments 
may be found in Docket ID No. OAR 2002-0052.
    Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA requested 
comment on establishing a subcategory for existing kilns equipped with 
wet scrubbers, if it could be demonstrated factually that there will 
otherwise be significant environmentally counterproductive effects due 
to increased emissions of acid gases, increased energy use, or 
increased water use. Several commenters asked that a subcategory for 
scrubber-equipped kilns be established since wet scrubbers cannot meet 
the proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf for existing affected 
kilns and, therefore, existing kilns with scrubbers will have to 
replace them with baghouses. They also asserted that in most cases, wet 
scrubbers have higher annualized costs than baghouses. Therefore, even 
if a wet scrubber could meet a PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf, 
facilities will opt to use baghouses due to cost considerations. This 
will result in an increase in emissions of HCl (a HAP) and 
SO2 (a non-HAP criteria pollutant) for a nominal decrease in 
HAP metal emissions. In later discussions, this same commenter (the 
industry trade association) pointed out that SO2 can undergo 
chemical reactions

[[Page 403]]

in the atmosphere to form sulfate PM, which is a type of PM which is 
less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (fine PM). In support of this 
request, one commenter provided estimates that not establishing the 
requested wet scrubber subcategory will result in a HAP metals 
emissions decrease of 3 tpy nationwide, but will result in increased 
emissions of 2,220 tpy for HCl and 2,475 tpy for SO2. They 
also provided data indicating that 46 percent of the increased 
SO2 emissions would react to form fine PM in the form of 
sulfates. They estimate that this would result in an increase of 1,645 
tpy of fine PM emissions. Other commenters provided site-specific 
examples they claimed demonstrated the same effect. One commenter also 
claimed that the higher operating temperatures of dry systems cause 
metals to vaporize and pass through a particulate collector, resulting 
in a lower metal concentration in the captured particulate. As a 
result, they claimed that even though dry control equipment may reduce 
HAP metals emissions, the reduction will be minimal, while the release 
of HCl and SO2 emissions will increase significantly. The 
commenter provided data which they claimed show the only conventional 
pollutant that will be reduced with the installation of a dry control 
system will be PM and, ``fugitive dust emissions from a dry system 
could more than offset the improved particulate collection on the kiln 
exhausts.''
    Response: Standards implementing section 112(d) of the CAA must, of 
course, be of a minimum level of stringency, usually referred to as the 
MACT floor. For existing sources, this floor level of control cannot be 
less stringent than ``the average emission limitation achieved by the 
best performing 12 percent of the existing sources (for which the 
Administrator has emissions information).'' In the final rule, EPA is 
establishing section 112(d) standards to control emissions of HAP 
metals, for which PM is a surrogate. None of the commenters challenged 
that the level of PM emissions reflecting the average of the 12 percent 
of the best performing sources (for HAP metals reduction) is 0.12 lb/
tsf. Notwithstanding, the commenters contended that EPA should 
subcategorize on the basis of the type of air pollution control device 
used and then separately determine the floor for each subcategory.
    Although the CAA contemplates that EPA may establish subcategories 
when promulgating MACT standards, subcategorization typically reflects 
``differences in manufacturing process, emission characteristics, or 
technical feasibility'' (67 FR 78058). A classic example, provided in 
the legislative history to CAA section 112(d), is of a different 
process leading to different emissions and different types of control 
strategies, the specific example being Soderberg and prebaked anode 
primary aluminum processes (see A Legislative History of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, vol. 1 at 1138-39 (floor debates on Conference 
Report)).
    Normally, it is legally impermissible to subcategorize based on the 
type of air pollution control device. See Chemicals Manufacturers 
Association v. EPA, 870 F. 2d 177, 218-19 ( 5th Cir. 1989) modified on 
different grounds on rehearing 884 F. 2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989) (rejecting 
subcategorization based on type of control device for purposes of the 
technology-based standards under the Clean Water Act, which are 
analogous to the CAA section 112 standards). The problem with 
subcategorizing on the basis of pollution control device, quite simply, 
is that it leads to situations where floors are established based on 
performance of sources that are not the best performing. For example, 
suppose a source category consists of 100 sources using the same 
process and having the same emission characteristics, but that 50 
sources use control device A to control HAP emissions, and 50 use 
control device B which is two orders of magnitude less efficient. If 
one subcategorized based on the type of pollution control device, the 
MACT floor for the 50 sources with control device B would reflect 
worst, rather than best performance. Although the disparity in levels 
of emission control between the best-performing sources here, and the 
best-performing sources using wet scrubbers is not this dramatic, the 
difference is nonetheless evident.
    Commenters provided no technical data that would justify 
subcategorizing. Nor are we aware of any. The commenters maintain 
instead that the best performing sources with respect to HAP metal 
reduction should not be considered ``best performing'' because that 
performance (achieved by use of FF) comes at an environmental cost, 
namely increased emissions of HCl and SO2 compared to what 
lime kilns equipped with wet scrubbers will emit. There is some support 
for the idea that if an ostensibly best-performing pollution control 
device creates potentially significant and counterproductive 
environmental effects, its performance need no longer be considered 
best due to the counterproductive effects and could justify 
differentiation in the form of separate standards. Commenters suggested 
that the increased emissions of HCl and SO2 will inevitably 
result (they maintain) if the owners of lime kilns replace wet 
scrubbers with baghouses. (The commenters did not suggest, however, 
that kilns with FF should replace them with a different type of control 
system to avoid these impacts; they sought the result of separate 
standards for FF-equipped kilns and wet system-equipped kilns.)
    Although it is not clear that the commenters' starting premise, 
that baghouses are either needed or will be used to achieve the PM 
standard, is invariably correct (see Response to Comment Document where 
EPA responds to comments regarding the performance capabilities of 
venturi wet scrubber systems), EPA estimated at proposal and continues 
to estimate that at least in some cases, kilns would replace wet 
scrubbers with dry systems (for example, where it is more economical to 
do so).
    The commenters provided no data to refute that a PM emission limit 
of a 0.12 lb/tsf represents best control of HAP emissions if we do not 
create any kiln subcategories. (We note that as part of their comments, 
they claimed that the higher temperatures of dry PM controls result in 
metals vaporizing and passing through the PM control. However, the data 
provided in their comment do not substantiate that claim, and studies 
done for the Hazardous Waste Combustor NESHAP indicate that all but a 
few percent of the metals in question exit the kilns as solid 
particulate.) However, our analysis indicates that the extent to which 
SO2 and HCl emissions actually increase may have been 
overstated by the commenter. The EPA estimates that if all facilities 
currently using wet scrubbers switched to dry controls, HCl emissions 
would increase by approximately 1,310 tpy (vs. 1,800 tpy estimated by 
the commenter), and SO2 emissions would increase by about 
1,830 tpy (vs 2,900 tpy estimated by the commenter). (See the 
memorandum ``Environmental Impacts of Decision on Best Control for Wet 
Scrubber-Controlled Kilns' in the docket for the final rule.) We do not 
regard either level of increased HCl emissions as significant. We 
modeled this emission increase as part of our determination (pursuant 
to CAA section 112(d)(4)) that emissions of HCl from lime kilns are 
below an HCl risk threshold within an ample margin of safety. See 67 FR 
78054-78057 and the risk analysis in the docket for the final rule. 
Given this determination, we cannot view these HCl increases as being 
so significant as

[[Page 404]]

to raise a question whether the best-performing sources with respect to 
HAP metal reductions are in fact best performing.
    The commenters also cited projected increases in the criteria 
pollutant SO2. They did not initially address the reductions 
in PM emissions resulting from the decision not to subcategorize by 
control device. The EPA estimates that nearly 1,080 tpy of additional 
PM is removed if all existing kilns were to meet a standard of 0.12 lb/
tsf, of which approximately 1.6 tpy are metal HAP. Although EPA may not 
promulgate standards for non-HAP under CAA section 112(d), Congress 
expected reductions in emissions of criteria pollutants such as PM to 
be a benefit of the MACT program. In comparison to estimates of 
increased emissions of SO2 and HCl by either the commenter 
or EPA, the decrease in captured PM emissions (and the attendant 
decrease in capture of non-mercury metal HAP) is significant.
    There is a further consideration, however. Based on the available 
size distribution data from Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 
Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area 
Sources, 73 percent of the PM emitted directly by lime kilns is coarse 
PM (PM in the size range of 10 to 2.5 micrometers). Some of the 
SO2 emitted to the atmosphere undergoes chemical reactions 
to form fine PM. (See generally the respective Criteria Documents for 
PM (EPA/600/P-95/001aF-cF. 3v, 1996) and SO2 (EPA/600/8-82-
029aF-cF. 3v., 1982 and addenda)). Thus, in assessing whether some 
potential factor might justify a decision that kilns with dry systems 
are not best performing, some comparison of coarse v. fine PM emissions 
here is needed.
    If we retain a single PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf for all 
existing kilns, total PM emissions would be reduced (compared to 
separate standards for kilns with wet scrubbers and dry controls) by an 
additional 1,080 tpy. Of that number, 630 tpy is fine PM and 450 is 
coarse PM. The potential amount of increased SO2 emissions 
is 1,830. A portion of this 1,830 tpy of SO2 will be 
converted in the atmosphere to produce 1,270 tpy of fine PM. Therefore, 
the incremental impact of a single PM standard of 0.12 lb/tsf for both 
wet scrubbers and dry controls would be an increase of 640 (1,270-630) 
tpy in fine PM emissions, and a decrease of 450 tpy in coarse PM 
emissions. This assumes that all facilities that currently have wet 
scrubbers switch to dry controls, and that 46 percent of the 
SO2 converts to fine PM. The 46 percent conversion estimate 
used by the commenter is consistent with information in the respective 
Criteria Documents for PM and SO2 discussed above.
    As recently summarized by EPA (68 FR 28339, May 23, 2003), 
scientific studies show ambient PM (both fine and coarse) is associated 
with a series of adverse health effects. Fine PM is associated with 
increases in daily mortality. Coarse PM is more strongly linked to 
morbidity (e.g. hospital admissions). See generally the respective 
Criteria Documents for PM (EPA/600/P-95/001aF-cF. 3v, 1996) and 
SO2 (EPA/600/8-82-029aF-cF. 3v., 1982 and addenda). 
Therefore, it is difficult to make comparisons between the relative 
benefits of reducing emissions of fine and coarse PM.
    The EPA views this situation as equivocal: It is unclear which of 
these types of performance is best since on the one hand there is 
reduced emissions of HAP metals and coarse PM but foregone control of 
SO2 and sulfate (fine) PM, and, for kilns controlled with 
wet systems, the converse. In this situation, and based on these facts, 
which, with current analytic tools seem to us to be largely in 
equipoise, we are not prepared to view either wet or dry systems as 
best performing and instead are promulgating a separate PM standard for 
each.
    The EPA emphasizes that considerations of risk and relative 
environmental benefits are normally irrelevant to MACT floor 
determinations (unless expressly authorized by statute, as in CAA 
section 112(d)(4) as applied in the final rule), since floor standards 
must reflect the performance of the specified number of designated 
sources. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640 
(considerations of cost and de minimis risk cannot be considered in 
making MACT floor determinations). We are considering these factors in 
the final rule solely for the purpose of evaluating the commenters' 
claim that sources using wet and dry control systems should be 
evaluated separately for MACT floor purposes due to environmental 
benefits and disbenefits associated with dry and dry control systems.
    Comment: One commenter stated that wet scrubbers cannot meet the 
proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf. They claimed that a wet 
scrubber manufacturer will only guarantee this limit if less than 1 
percent of the particles to be removed are less than 1 micrometer in 
diameter. The commenter stated that EPA assumes that the average mass 
diameter of particles in lime kiln gas effluent is 2 micrometers, and 
that this assumption is based on a single reference, and that reference 
was actually fugitive lime dust, not lime kiln particulate. They 
further claimed that volatilization and homogenous nucleation of 
potassium chloride particles in the gas stream generates particles in 
the 0.1 to 0.5 micrometers size range. ``As particle size decreases 
below 1 micrometer, inertial compaction becomes decreasingly effective. 
Above 0.1 micrometers, Brownian displacement is ineffective. In the 
range between 0.1 and 0.5 micrometers, neither of these two main 
particle capture mechanisms relied upon in wet scrubber design is very 
effective.'' The commenter presented data from a recent scrubber 
installation to demonstrate the point.
    A second commenter claimed that a scrubber performance efficiency 
of 99.9 percent will be required to meet the 0.0072 grain/dry standard 
cubic foot (gr/dscf) particulate concentration which they claimed 
corresponds to the proposed PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/tsf. The 
commenter's environmental consultant advised that it is unlikely a wet 
scrubber with a 35-inch pressure drop could achieve this level of 
performance with the facility's current inlet exhaust particulate 
loading.
    Response: We have serious technical disagreements with this 
comment, as set out in the Response to Comment Background Document. 
However, because EPA feels that some kilns with wet systems would 
replace them with dry systems to comply with a PM emission limit of 
0.12 lb/tsf, the potential tradeoff between coarse PM/HAP metals and 
fine PM/SO2 reductions likely will still occur.
    Comment: One commenter contended that EPA asserts incorrectly that 
lime plants will choose high-efficiency venturi scrubbers to replace 
their current wet scrubbers because high-efficiency venturi scrubbers 
have lower capital costs and sometimes lower annual costs than FF. They 
further stated that five of the six model kilns the Agency examined had 
much higher annualized costs for high-efficiency venturi scrubbers than 
for FF. This commenter submitted a manufacturer's cost proposal that 
shows a scrubber with a 35-inch pressure drop costs substantially more 
than EPA estimates. They conclude from this that lime kilns will be 
forced to use FF, with attendant increases in HCl and SO2 
emissions. Another commenter stated that the cost for the installation 
of a FF will be higher than EPA estimated due to the location of 
existing equipment in the area where the collector should be located, 
construction of the duct collector in a congested area with plant 
operations,

[[Page 405]]

and accessibility to existing lime kiln dust handling systems.
    Response: Regarding modeled high costs for scrubbers compared to 
FF, individual models may show this characteristic. However, the 
distribution of kiln sizes in the lime industry and the allocation of 
model plants to those kilns shows that estimated nationwide total 
annual costs for replacing existing wet scrubbers with high-efficiency 
venturi scrubbers is $6.6 million. The total annual cost if the 
existing wet scrubbers are replaced with FF is $7.0 million. So there 
is essentially no cost difference on a nationwide basis.
    For both types of control system, costs for any specific plant may 
be more or less than the value shown by the model used to estimate 
nationwide cost. The plant is expected to buy whatever system its 
management believes is in the best business interests of the owners, 
but in the aggregate, estimated annual cost for control systems is 
about the same whether all plants replace existing equipment with 
venturi scrubbers or with FF. It is for this reason that EPA is finding 
that at least some kilns would replace wet systems with dry if required 
to meet a uniform PM limit of 0.12 lb/tsf.
    There were two comments where specific facilities claimed that 
their costs will be higher than EPA estimated in our model plant 
analysis. One was a vendor's actual cost proposal for a scrubber with 
35-inch w.g. pressure drop, and one was for installation of a FF. Our 
costs are based on model plants developed from industry responses to 
questionnaires. Given that we do not have site specific information on 
every facility, this is a reasonable approach to calculating costs. It 
is always possible that there are site specific factors that will 
result in any one facility having higher or lower costs than costs 
estimated using model plants. Our methodology is based on estimates of 
basic equipment costs, and factors to calculate direct and indirect 
capital costs that constitute total capital investment. Unit costs are 
applied to labor, utilities, waste disposal, and other operating and 
maintenance costs to obtain direct annual costs. Indirect annualized 
costs based on capital recovery and other service charges are also 
estimated and added to direct annual costs to obtain total annual cost. 
Costing based on a model plant gives an estimate that can be included 
in an aggregate estimation of costs across all model plants weighted by 
their representation in the nationwide population. This approach 
necessarily will not address each specific case found in industry. 
Therefore, one facility's reported costs not corresponding to our model 
plant costs does not indicate that our costs are underestimated. We 
also note that, except for a comment on flue gas flow which we 
previously addressed, the commenters did not take exception to the 
basic equipment costs, energy costs, or cost factors used by us in our 
model plant assessment of the rule's cost analysis as proposed.
    One commenter also mentioned the cost resulting from the location 
of existing equipment and plant congestion. We have accounted for these 
costs by including factors for demolition and salvage of existing 
equipment that will have to be replaced by the new control system. A 
retrofit factor is also included to account for difficulties in 
replacing existing equipment with new equipment in an existing plant 
(see ``Costing Algorithm for Venturi Scrubber on Lime Kilns with 
Existing Scrubbers'').
    Comment: Several commenters claimed that not establishing a 
subcategory for scrubber-equipped kilns will adversely affect small 
businesses. They stated that the annualized cost of upgrading all 
scrubbers is $9.45 million, based on EPA's estimate of total annualized 
costs. According to the commenter, EPA predicts that upgrading these 
kilns will reduce HAP metals by 3.1 tpy, resulting in a cost 
effectiveness of $3.0 million/ton of metal HAP. The commenter stated 
that EPA's assumption that 30 percent of lime plants are area sources 
and won't be affected by the final rule reduces the removal of metal 
HAP attributed to upgrading scrubber-equipped kilns to 2.2 tpy 
(although the commenter stated that EPA has provided no support for the 
assumption that 30 percent of lime plants are area sources).
    Another commenter noted that EPA's estimated annualized cost for 
the commenter to install FF is $2,236,000, which equates to $9.3 
million per ton of particulate HAP control.
    Response: Section 112 of the CAA precludes us from considering cost 
when calculating MACT floors. Therefore, none of the cost issues 
discussed above are sufficient to support a separate subcategory for 
existing kilns with wet scrubbers, or otherwise support a different 
standard.
    Though costs cannot be a consideration here, our estimate shows a 
cost of $6.6 million to upgrade all scrubbers to meet the rule as 
proposed, versus the $9.45 million figure provided by the commenter. 
Our estimate assumed 70 percent of kilns are located at major sources, 
and 90 percent of scrubbers would require an upgrade. This was probable 
an overly conservative way to estimate costs. In reality, it is 
reasonable to assume that, on average, the existing scrubbers have only 
50 percent of their useful life remaining. Because we allocated all of 
the capital cost of a new scrubber to the rule, our costs are 
conservative.
    However, we have written the final rule to allow separate PM 
emission limits for kilns with wet versus dry controls. Therefore, the 
premise of the comment, that not subcategorizing by control device will 
adversely affect small business, is now moot. In the final costs, we 
estimate that only 30 percent of existing wet scrubbers will require 
upgrade or replacement. As noted previously, because we are allocating 
all the capital replacement cost to the final rule, our costs are still 
conservative.
    Comment: One commenter objected to EPA's rationale of using PM as a 
surrogate for controlling toxic metals emissions. The commenter stated 
that if EPA has sufficient data to indicate that toxic emissions from 
lime kilns are an ambient air problem, then the regulation should focus 
on reducing gaseous emissions such as HCl.
    Response: By limiting emissions of PM, the final rule will reduce 
emissions of non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP, which are a 
subset of PM, and are necessarily removed when PM is removed by air 
pollution control equipment. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
rule, air pollution controls for HAP metals are the same as the PM 
controls used by the lime manufacturing industry, i.e., FF, ESP, and 
wet scrubbers. These controls capture non-volatile and semi-volatile 
metal HAP non-preferentially along with other PM, thus making PM an 
acceptable indicator of these HAP metals. Particulate matter control 
technology, thus, indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other 
particulate. Consequently, it is an appropriate indicator when the 
technical basis of the standard is performance of back-end particulate 
control technology.
    Another reason for using a surrogate is the lower cost of emissions 
testing and monitoring for PM as compared to the cost of emissions 
testing and monitoring for multiple metal HAP that will be required to 
demonstrate compliance. Because PM control devices control metal HAP to 
the same efficiency and because of the associated cost savings 
associated with emissions testing and monitoring, the Agency has 
promulgated several other NESHAP where PM is a surrogate for non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP.
    Regarding the commenter's second point concerning regulating 
emission of

[[Page 406]]

HCl, the preamble to the proposed rule explained in detail the Agency's 
decision not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns. To summarize 
that discussion, the EPA determined that, under the authority of 
section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, no further control was necessary because 
HCl is a threshold pollutant, and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns 
are below the threshold value within an ample margin of safety to 
humans and to the environment, and considering the possibility that 
facilities that currently have wet scrubbers for PM emissions control 
may switch to dry PM controls. (The CAA section 112(d)(4) analysis also 
considered the potential for environmental harm posed by HCl emissions 
from these sources.)
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PM emission limit for new 
lime kilns should be 0.12 lb/tsf, the same as the emission limit for 
existing kilns. The commenter noted that the proposed limit is based on 
two 3-hour test runs at one plant. According to the commenter, EPA 
recognized in the proposal preamble that 3-hour test results are just a 
snapshot in time and should not be used as the basis for establishing 
an enforceable standard, and that EPA expressly rejected such an 
approach when establishing the MACT floor for existing kilns. The 
commenter stated that data in the docket shows that 0.10 lb/tsf is not 
continuously achievable by lime kilns, and EPA should not establish a 
separate PM limit for new lime kilns.
    Another commenter stated 0.10 lbs PM/ton stone feed for a new kiln 
is too restrictive, and EPA does not have adequate data to determine 
that a FF or scrubber-equipped kiln could achieve this low level of 
emissions on a sustained basis.
    Response: The approach to which the commenter refers whereby EPA 
rejected the use of the ``average or mean'' in establishing the MACT 
floor for existing sources did not refer to the average of individual 
test runs as implied by the comment. Rather, it refers to EPA's 
decision to use the median (instead of a simple mean) of the top-
performing 12 percent to set the MACT floor. Furthermore, as an 
indication of the achievability of the technology over the long term, 
EPA chose to rely on State-imposed permit limits (in conjunction with 
emissions test data showing that those permit limits are representative 
of actual performance) in arriving at the MACT floor emission limit.
    In test data cited by the commenter, the three-run averages for two 
sets of emissions tests for the kiln used to set the MACT new PM limit 
are below (0.079 and 0.091 lb/tsf) the proposed PM limit of 0.1 lb/tsf 
for new lime kilns. The commenter noted that one of the test runs was 
at the proposed 0.1 lb/tsf PM limit and that the proposed 0.1 lb/tsf 
limit was, therefore, inappropriate.
    It is reasonable for EPA to establish a standard based on the same 
methodology that will be used for complying with that standard. See, 
e.g., Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 34 (D.C. Cir. 
1992). We note that compliance with emission limits is normally based 
on a three-run average which can accommodate occasional elevated 
results as long as the average is at or below the established limit. 
Furthermore, the emission test results for five of the six top 
performing kilns were 0.0091, 0.013, 0.026, 0.027, and 0.091 lb/tsf. 
These results adequately account for operating variability and indicate 
that any new kiln using well designed and operated control devices can 
meet the 0.1 lb/tsf limit. Based on this, we see no basis to state that 
a 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limit is not achievable or appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the proposed NESHAP will 
require the replacement of their two wet scrubbers with baghouses. They 
claim there is no space for FF retrofit, and that converting to 
baghouses will trigger prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) 
nonattainment review due to increased SO2 emissions.
    Response: While we recognize that a facility may (or may not) have 
site-specific space restrictions, we have, on average, adequately 
accounted for these factors by incorporating cost analysis factors to 
account for retrofit and equipment demolition. We have also allowed a 
facility 3 years to comply with the final NESHAP. This should allow 
sufficient time for facilities to replace or upgrade existing equipment 
during scheduled outages. The averaging provisions in the final NESHAP 
also provide facilities with additional flexibility concerning 
replacement or upgrade of existing equipment.
    Requiring an existing facility with a wet scrubber to upgrade their 
PM controls to meet 0.12 lb/tsf will not necessarily trigger new source 
review (NSR). First, as previously discussed, the facility can choose 
to replace or upgrade their existing scrubbers, which means there will 
be no SO2 (or other collateral pollutant) emissions increase 
to trigger NSR requirements. Second, if they choose to use a baghouse, 
they may be able to avoid NSR by qualifying for a pollution control 
project exclusion (67 FR 80186).
    Comment: One commenter stated the particulate matter emission 
limits proposed for lime manufacturing kilns and coolers do not 
represent the maximum achievable control technology and are much less 
stringent than the limits actually required by the CAA. The commenter 
noted that the proposed rule discredits performance test data which 
demonstrate that particulate emissions of less than half the proposed 
standard for existing plants are routinely achieved by claiming they 
may not be consistently achievable, but EPA has provided no statistics. 
The commenter claimed that EPA has chosen instead to base the standards 
on permit limits, but has selectively eliminated from consideration 
those permits calling for stringent controls which are currently in 
place. The commenter gives the examples of Continental Lime which is in 
compliance with a best available control technology (BACT) limit for PM 
emissions of 0.05 lb/ton limestone, and Western Lime which is in 
compliance with a permit limit for PM emissions of 0.06 lb/ton 
limestone.
    The commenter noted that if performance data do not represent 
achievable emission limits, EPA should consider design standards based 
on air-to-cloth ratios. The commenter also stated the proposed 
particulate emission limits for grinders, conveyors, and bins are also 
based on data which overstate emissions (in nearly all cases) and do 
not represent MACT. The commenter stated EPA should examine actual 
performance test data test or actual permit limitations.
    Response: The EPA reviewed data on the kilns referred to in the 
comment. The permit limits cited by the commenter were apparently 
reported on the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN) website. The EPA 
contacted the Montana Department of Environment and found that the 
limit for one of these kilns is actually 0.5 lb/tsf and not 0.05 lb/tsf 
as reported on the TTN website. Also, the complete permit for the other 
kiln mentioned was located on the Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources website, which showed the permit limit for the kiln in 
question as being 0.12 lb/tsf rather than the 0.058 lb/tsf as reported 
on the TTN website. Based on the correct PM permit limits for these two 
lime sources, EPA's conclusions regarding MACT PM limits for existing 
and new sources are still appropriate. As the response to the previous 
question shows, these permit limits are also representative of actual 
performance.
    The floor for grinders, conveyors, and bins is based on the 
existing new source performance standards (NSPS). We have no data to 
support a different floor.

[[Page 407]]

    Comment: One commenter stated that opacity does not correlate to PM 
mass emissions. The commenter noted the EPA has stated on several 
occasions that a COMS can determine opacity, but a COMS cannot 
determine PM emissions. And if particle density changes but the 
particle size remains the same, opacity will not change while the mass 
emission rate will change in proportion to the density change. The 
commenter agreed that PM is a technically sound surrogate for HAP 
metals, but disagreed that opacity serves as a surrogate for HAP metals 
as stated in the proposal preamble.
    The commenter stated that a COMS can not be used to evaluate the 
continuous compliance status of kilns, coolers, or PSH operations that 
have a mass emission limit. The commenter was not aware of any data 
that show a definitive link between opacity and mass emissions except 
in very limited and controlled situations. In addition, the commenter 
did not understand how a 15 percent 6-minute average opacity limit can 
be correlated to a 3-hour rolling average PM emission limit of lb/ton 
of stone feed.
    The commenter stated a better alternative is to use a PM continuous 
emissions monitor system (CEMS) that measures PM mass emissions in 
units that are directly related to the mass emission limit. The 
commenter noted that EPA's stated reluctance to use a PM CEMS in the 
absence of performance specifications is inconsistent with the 
remainder of the standard, since the use of BLDS and a PM detector are 
proposed without performance specifications. The commenter also noted 
that an extractive type PM CEMS designed to operate in wet exhaust 
streams can provide a direct indication of compliance for wet 
scrubbers.
    Response: We agree that a COMS cannot directly measure PM 
emissions. However, a properly calibrated and maintained COMS is 
sufficient to demonstrate long term PM control device performance. The 
purpose of the monitor is to demonstrate with reasonable certainty that 
the PM control device is operating as well as it did during the PM 
emission test used to demonstrate compliance.
    We also note that PM CEMS are significantly more expensive to 
purchase and maintain than a COMS or PM detector. Also, PM CEMS measure 
concentration, while the basis of the standard is mass per unit of feed 
input. Because the standard is not based on PM concentration, and no PM 
CEMS are currently installed and operating on the best controlled 
kilns, we have no data to develop a PM standard based on the use of PM 
CEMS.
    Comment: Several commenters stated EPA Method 9 in Appendix A to 40 
CFR part 60 should be allowed for a positive pressure baghouse. 
According to one commenter, the bag leak detector guidance document 
recognizes that requiring BLDS will be very costly, and stated that the 
document does not apply to this type of baghouse (EPA's ``Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997, pg 2). 
This commenter gave the example of a small business that will be 
required to have a bag leak detector for each of the eight compartments 
in its baghouse under the final rule, and whose title V permit allows 
Method 9 monitoring for the baghouse. According to one commenter, the 
associated costs of installing a separate bag leak detector or PM CEM 
sensor on each discharge or new common stack could easily exceed 
$1,000,000. The commenter noted that, ``baghouse pressure differential 
readings, together with fan amperage and daily visible emission 
notations will provide the necessary performance assurance with ample 
and timely indication of baghouse failures or malfunctions.''
    Response: We acknowledge that there are precedents for the use of 
alternatives to COMS, BLDS, and PM detectors on positive pressure 
baghouses that have multiple stacks. The NESHAP for portland cement, an 
industry that has similarities to the lime manufacturing industry, 
allows the use of opacity monitoring using Method 9 in Appendix A of 40 
CFR part 60 for kilns having control devices with multiple stacks. 
Based on this analogous situation, we have decided that existing lime 
kilns controlled by control devices having multiple stacks will have 
the option of using Method 9 in Appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 for daily 
opacity monitoring.
    Comment: One commenter stated that a single excursion from 
operating parameters recorded during a 3-hour compliance test should 
not constitute a violation. The commenter stated that, ``the new source 
performance standard (NSPS) kilns are the lime industry's top 
performers, and their monitoring regime should be the benchmark against 
which monitoring under the MACT rule is prescribed.'' Since a violation 
under the NSPS does not occur unless the parameter is greater than 30 
percent below the rates established during the performance test, the 
commenter recommends a 30 percent ``buffer'' between the permit limit 
and the 3-hour average recorded during the compliance test. Or, 
``alternatively, like the Pulp and Paper MACT, the rule should specify 
that a violation of the standard does not occur unless 6 or more 3-hour 
average parameter values are recorded outside the established range 
within the 6 month reporting period.''
    The commenter noted that EPA's compliance assurance monitoring 
(CAM) guidance document states, ``Use of only 3 hours of parameter data 
may not be sufficient to fully characterize parameter values during 
normal operation.'' The commenter also noted that language in the 
proposal preamble cautions against developing enforceable emission 
standards based on 3-hour compliance tests. The commenter also noted 
that none of the CAM plans for scrubbers base a permit limit on the 3-
hour average reading that occurred during a compliance test, and two of 
the plans allow a 15 percent buffer to account for variability.
    The commenter provided gas pressure drop readings and concurrent PM 
test data for three kilns, and noted that for each of them, gas 
pressure drop during one or more 1-hour runs was below the proposed 3-
hour average. The commenter stated that under the proposed rules, these 
readings below the 3-hour average would constitute a violation.
    The commenter also stated the final rule should provide an 
exemption from the PM emission limit during performance testing. The 
commenter stated, ``plant operators may need to conduct a series of 
performance tests to determine the minimum pressure drop and liquid 
flow rate levels that will assure compliance for each set of operating 
conditions used for a particular kiln. Results for these tests are not 
available until post-test laboratory analyses are completed.''
    Response: Each owner/operator is required to define the compliance 
parameters to be monitored in their OM&M plan. Then, during the initial 
performance tests, they are required to monitor and establish the value 
or range of the parameters. The 30 percent buffers referred to by the 
commenters refer to NSPS, which, in general, predate NESHAP. In 
developing various NESHAP, we determined that the 30 percent buffers 
were not necessary. For this reason, most NESHAP specify that exceeding 
an operating parameter over the specified averaging period is a 
deviation. The commenters also mentioned the Pulp and Paper MACT. 
However, the Pulp and Paper MACT would appear to be unusual in regards 
to the allowance for exceedances. The commenters did not provide any 
rationale why we should add provisions similar to the Pulp and Paper 
MACT

[[Page 408]]

when other MACT standards do not allow exceedances.
    The commenters also referred to a statement in the CAM proposal and 
guidance document. The CAM rule only applies to emission limitations or 
standards proposed by the Administration on or before November 15, 
1990. Monitoring and control technology have progressed significantly 
since the technology available when these older rules were developed. 
Also, facilities have 3 years to install control equipment and learn 
their processes' operating parameters and set up compliance test 
conditions that result in operating limits that both result in 
compliance with the PM emission limit and can be met on a continuous 
basis. For these reasons, we do not agree that the CAM applies here.
    Most operating parameters are required to be calculated as 3-hour 
averages. This is generally consistent with performance test times. 
Thus, a 1-hour period of insufficient gas pressure drop will not, by 
itself, be considered an excursion.
    Facilities must complete their performance tests prior to the 
compliance date. Therefore, they are not required to be in compliance 
with the emission limits during testing, and there is no reason to 
provide an exemption.
    Comment: In response to EPA's request for comments on the 
appropriate opacity limit (EPA was considering an opacity limit of 10 
to 15 percent), several commenters stated that the opacity standard for 
lime kilns should be 15 percent, as proposed. One commenter provided 
additional data in the form of opacity data from four kilns. According 
to this commenter, the opacity data for selected kilns are not reliable 
for establishing an opacity standard because they are from visible 
emission data collected for brief periods of time under poor viewing 
conditions.
    Response: Based on information considered prior to proposal as well 
as additional information supplied by commenters, EPA is retaining the 
15 percent opacity limit for sources controlled using FF and ESP. 
Information considered by EPA in proposing the opacity limit suggested 
that the average opacity permit limit of the top performing lime kilns 
was 15 percent. Information provided by the commenters supporting the 
proposed opacity limit indicated that opacity levels may vary between 
10 and 15 percent even for well operated and maintained kilns. No 
information was provided supporting a more stringent, or more lenient 
opacity limit than the one proposed. Therefore, EPA is retaining the 
proposed 15 percent opacity limit in the final NESHAP.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the final rule specify a 
time period during which opacity readings greater than 15 percent are 
not considered a violation. One commenter requested at a minimum that 
the final rule state that opacity readings greater than 15 percent for 
less than 1 percent of the reporting period are not considered to be a 
violation.
    Another commenter noted that they operate two of the top six 
performers in the industry, and it is impossible not to have occasional 
readings that would be violations if there were no allowances for them. 
The commenter's State permits allow 1 percent of operating time per 
quarter to exceed the opacity limit.
    Another commenter suggested other time frames for allowable 
exceedances. Two commenters referred to the Pulp and Paper MACT as an 
example of an existing rule with such an exemption.
    Response: We find no justification to support allowing excursions 
above the 15 percent opacity limit. Well operated and maintained 
control devices will typically operate at opacity levels much lower 
than 15 percent. Other NESHAP, including the portland cement NESHAP, 
contain opacity limits for which no exceedances are allowed. Data from 
limes kilns, cited below, support this. Because we have industry 
specific data, the Pulp and Paper MACT example is not applicable.
    In response to the commenters' concerns about occasional excursions 
above the opacity limit, there are times when opacity levels above 15 
percent are not considered to be a violation of the final rule. These 
include periods when a control device malfunctions, or is in a period 
startup or shutdown (as long as the facility follows its SSMP). If 
opacity levels exceed 15 percent as a result of a control device 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, it will not be considered a 
violation of the opacity limit (see Sec.  63.7121(b)of the final rule). 
The same is true during periods when a monitoring system malfunctions 
or is being calibrated (see Sec.  63.7120(b) of the final rule).
    Information supplied by one commenter showed opacity readings for 
several kilns over several days. Nearly all of the readings were well 
below the 15 percent limit with just a few exceptions for each kiln. 
The commenter who supplied the opacity readings was asked to supply 
additional information regarding the opacity excursions above 15 
percent. In each instance, the high opacity reading was explained by a 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction of the control device or by a 
malfunctioning monitor or a monitoring system that was undergoing 
calibration, none of which will be considered a violation of the 
opacity limit as long as the facility follows its SSMP. Well run and 
maintained control devices can meet the opacity limit and the 
occasional excursion above the limit due to control device or 
monitoring system malfunction will not be a violation of the operating 
limit.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the economic impacts analysis 
(EIA) neglected to include some significant costs of implementing the 
rule, including the cost of dismantling existing equipment, lost sales 
during downtime, and the cost of re-hiring personnel after plant 
modifications if scrubbers must be replaced. The commenter also noted 
that maintenance and supervisory personnel currently do not work 
evening and weekend shifts, but will likely be required in the event of 
failure of the recommended monitoring equipment.
    A second commenter stated EPA's estimated $1.17 per ton of lime 
cost estimate for control costs is low, and the cost to a typical lime 
producer will be significantly higher. In particular, the commenter 
noted that the additional power required for high pressure drop 
scrubbers alone would be approximately $1.30 per ton of produced lime. 
In addition, EPA's estimated equipment costs appear to be low.
    Response: As discussed in the response to comments regarding a 
separate subcategory for scrubbers, estimated implementation costs used 
for the EPA model plants include costs for demolition of existing 
equipment and credits for salvage value. Because plants have a 3-year 
period in which to comply with the final NESHAP, it is expected that 
scheduled downtime will be used for disconnecting an existing scrubber 
and connecting a new scrubber. As a general practice, building a new 
scrubber while the existing scrubber remains in operation is preferable 
to taking the associated kiln out of service for an extended period of 
time and losing production from the kiln. The plant is expected to use 
its labor force in the manner normally found for planned downtime. Such 
labor costs (or savings) would not be attributable to compliance with 
the final NESHAP.
    Power costs for new scrubbers are calculated incrementally, i.e., 
costs are estimated for the difference between 35-inch. w.g. (new 
scrubbers) and 14 inch w.g. (existing scrubbers). For individual model 
kilns, summing the power costs and dividing by the model's production 
rate gives estimated incremental power

[[Page 409]]

costs ranging from $0.82 to $1.47/ton of lime. On a nationwide basis, 
aggregating the model kiln costs apportioned among the affected kiln 
population provides average costs as estimated by EPA.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that the EIA is seriously flawed 
because it assumes lime producers can pass control costs through to 
consumers. The commenter maintained that lime producers cannot raise 
prices. The reasons cited included a highly competitive market due to 
overcapacity, competition from unregulated sources, the existence of 
competitive substitutes for most key markets, and significant market 
resistance. The commenter also claimed that recent history proves that 
prices cannot be increased. Finally, the commenter stated that because 
the price increase assumed by EPA is erroneous, EPA's prediction that 
only two lime plants will close seriously understates the impact. One 
other commenter also stated that they could not increase prices.
    Response: We conducted an economic analysis primarily as part of 
the Executive Order 12866 analysis and partly to ascertain impacts on 
small businesses for purposes of compliance with the Small Business 
Regulatory and Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA). The analysis is also 
used to determine economic impacts of any beyond-the-floor 
considerations under section 112(d)(2) of the CAA. However, as provided 
by section 112(d)(3), and confirmed by the D.C. Circuit in the National 
Lime case, considerations of costs are simply irrelevant to 
determinations of MACT floors. Thus, EPA did not consider any of the 
economic analysis as part of its floor determinations, and that context 
should be understood in all of the responses to comments relating to 
the Agency's economic impact analysis.
    The fact that many lime plants are currently operating at less than 
full capacity implies that their supply curves should be relatively 
elastic (flat) at current production levels because lime producers can 
fairly easily change output without running into capacity constraints.
    Assuming that the lime industry is very competitive (as stated by 
the commenter) and has substantial overcapacity implies that the 
industry marginal cost curve (and the market supply curve) should be 
relatively flat at current production levels. To the extent that the 
costs of the lime manufacturing MACT standards increase the marginal 
costs of lime production, having a very elastic (flat) supply curve is 
a textbook case where the majority of the costs are passed on to 
consumers. A highly competitive market implies, by definition, that 
individual producers cannot unilaterally increase their prices without 
losing most, if not all, of their customers. It does not imply that the 
market price will not increase in response to a general increase in the 
cost of lime production due to environmental regulations.
    It is certainly true that foreign lime suppliers (including 
suppliers located in Mexico) gain because the final rule applies only 
to domestic lime producers. However, imports of lime account for an 
extremely tiny share of the lime market prior to the final rule (about 
1 percent nationally), and even a fairly large percentage increase in 
imports shows up as a very small change in absolute terms. High 
transportation costs are expected to prevent significant replacement of 
domestic lime with imported lime.
    To examine the historical supply responsiveness in the lime market, 
we estimated the supply elasticity for lime using data from 1983-2001. 
These estimates capture the overall change in the quantity of lime 
supplied in response to a change in the real (inflation-adjusted) price 
of lime, including any entry or exit of captive suppliers from the 
market. Based on estimates obtained from the econometric model, the 
domestic lime supply elasticity was 1.24 at the average price and 
quantity for the period and 0.98 using the lime price and quantity for 
1997, the baseline year for the EIA. The value for the baseline year 
implies that a 1 percent increase in price would lead lime producers to 
increase their lime production by 0.98 percent, other things being 
equal.
    For the lime price to remain constant due to entry into the 
commercial market by captive suppliers, that entry would need to be 
sufficient that it led to the market supply curve being perfectly 
elastic. There is no evidence for a perfectly elastic market supply 
curve due to large-scale entry based on historical estimates of the 
responsiveness of lime supply to changes in real price.
    There are substitutes for lime in many of the markets in which it 
competes, such as crushed limestone, caustic soda, soda ash, and other 
products. However, unless the alternatives are perfect substitutes, 
this does not imply that the price of lime will not increase in 
response to an increase in production costs.
    The fact that lime prices have not increased in recent years 
despite plant closures and increases in real prices in no way implies 
that those events do not exert upward pressure on prices. The relevant 
comparison is the price with and without those events, not before and 
after they occur. It is expected that prices would have been even lower 
if there had not been closures and increases in input prices.
    As outlined in the responses to these comments, there is no 
evidence to support the claim that the assumption that lime price will 
increase is erroneous, and that the estimated economic impact of the 
final rule is understated.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA economic model for the 
lime market assumes a nationally perfectly competitive market, but lime 
prices are primarily dictated by large producers who sell capacity 
regardless of price.
    Response: This comment suggests that large lime producers have 
market power and, therefore, face a downward sloping demand curve and 
have some ability to set prices. If large lime producers do possess 
market power, then profit-maximizing behavior would imply that they 
would restrict output below the levels expected under perfect 
competition in order to increase market price to the point that their 
marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. The large producers 
may have lower marginal costs such that the resulting price makes it 
difficult for the small producers that take the market price as given 
to remain in business. However, the presence of market power in the 
lime industry would tend to increase prices relative to the perfectly 
competitive case, not decrease them.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned over EPA's use of the Acute 
Exposure Guideline Level (AEGL) in assessing the health risk associated 
with HCl. While not directly objecting to the conclusions reached by 
EPA, the commenter noted that the intended use of the AEGL, according 
to the National Research Council, is in conjunction with ``once in a 
lifetime'' exposures for emergency exposures ranging from 10 minutes to 
8 hours. Because the AEGL values are intended to be used in conjunction 
with a single lifetime exposure, they can be higher than short term 
limits recommended for populations with repeated exposures. It is not 
clear in the description of the industry analysis, if in their use of 
AEGL they were contemplating a once in a lifetime exposure or whether 
exposures would be occurring repeatedly. The commenter stated that EPA 
should explicitly state how they believe AEGL values should be used in 
their risk assessment process and what are the possible exposure levels 
to the public. The commenter was also troubled by the use in the 
rationale of

[[Page 410]]

both the reference concentration (estimated daily exposure that over a 
lifetime is not likely to result in significant noncancer effect in 
humans) and the AEGL (once in a lifetime exposure).
    The commenter asked that EPA clarify their position on the use of 
AEGL values for environmental risk assessments, and whether its use 
represents a ``reasonable methodology'' and ``consistent with EPA 
methodology'' as claimed in the preamble.
    Response: In order to evaluate short-term exposure to hydrochloric 
acid, EPA reviewed the available acute dose-response values for this 
compound. Among these, the Calliope reference exposure level (REL) and 
AEGL-1 values (2.1 and 2.7 mg/M\3\, respectively) were found to be the 
most health protective. Since these benchmarks were effectively the 
same, and AEGL values are products of a Federal effort in which EPA 
participates, we gave priority to the AEGL. Therefore, the AEGL-1 
selected for analysis represented the most appropriate value.
    Comment: Several commenters stated the final rule should not 
require HCl testing of all kilns. The commenters note that in recent 
years, many lime plants have been forced to idle or infrequently 
operate kilns at operating plants due to increased fuel cost, reduced 
customer demand, etc., and start up of every kiln for the purpose of 
conducting HCl testing will require significant expenditures. This will 
also result in PM and other emissions that otherwise would not be 
generated. As a result, it was requested the final rule be written to 
provide state agencies with the discretion to determine whether testing 
of all kilns at a lime plant is necessary in order to demonstrate that 
a plant is an area source.
    Response: In the final NESHAP, we have included language allowing 
the permitting authority discretion concerning whether idle kilns must 
be tested.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that performance testing should 
be conducted under ``representative'' conditions rather than under the 
``highest production level reasonably expected to occur.'' One 
commenter noted inconsistencies between what is proposed in Table 4 in 
the proposed rule and what is required under the General Provisions at 
40 CFR 63.7(e)(1). The EPA has recently amended the Cement MACT to fix 
similar inconsistencies, and the commenter suggested the lime MACT be 
similarly revised.
    Response: We have written the requirement in the final rule to 
require testing under representative conditions, which is in agreement 
with the language in the General Provisions.
    Comment: Two commenters stated the final rule should provide a 
risk-based exemption from the entire rule (not just from HCl standards) 
for plants at which modeled risks are below health based thresholds. 
One commenter noted that EPA recently solicited comment on providing 
risk-based exemptions in proposed MACT standards for several source 
categories. This commenter strongly supported the view that such 
exemptions should be provided in MACT standards that impose substantial 
costs while achieving negligible reductions in risks to public health 
and stated the lime MACT fits this description.
    Response: Other than the decision to not regulate emissions of HCl 
from lime manufacturing, EPA did not consider and did not request 
comments on providing risk-based exemptions for lime manufacturing 
facilities. Although EPA is aware that risk-based exemptions were being 
discussed in other proposed rules, no decisions have been made by the 
Agency regarding risk-based exemptions and application to industry 
groups or individual plants. Due to the uncertainty of how these 
exemptions would be structured, it would not be appropriate to include 
these site specific risk-based exemptions in the final rule. Including 
such a substantive statement change in the final rule without allowing 
the general public an opportunity to comment would be a violation of 
the notice and comment requirements found in section 307(d) of the CAA, 
especially in light of the fact that their inclusion in other proposed 
rules have generated significant negative public comment.
    Comment: One commenter stated the benefits analysis is based on 
inaccurate assumptions, and presented conclusions regarding reductions 
in metal HAP that are greatly overstated.
    The commenter also claimed that the emission factor for existing 
uncontrolled stone handling operations is also overstated; it was 
derived using AP-42 emission factors with ``E'' ratings. The commenter 
stated that it presented to the SBREFA Panel a more reliable emission 
factor for these units that is rated ``C'' and was revised in 1995.
    In addition, the commenter claimed that EPA overstated the amount 
of new capacity and the emissions from new rotary kilns. The commenter 
stated, ``EPA should either reflect (our) estimates in the preamble to 
the final rule, or provide a reasoned response to our comments that 
EPA's estimates are overstated'' * * * we believe the best estimate of 
metal HAP reductions is 3.5 tons (7,000 pounds) per year. Based on the 
56 lime plants predicted to be subject to the MACT rule, this 
translates into an annual reduction in metal HAP per lime plant of 124 
pounds.
    Response: We reviewed the new information on PM emissions presented 
by the commenter, as well as their calculations of baseline emissions 
and emission reductions resulting from the final rule. In the case of 
baseline emissions from kilns and coolers, the information provided by 
the commenter is a more reasonable estimate than the emission factors 
we used at proposal. Therefore, we revised our baseline PM emissions 
estimates to incorporate this new information. In the case of emissions 
from PSH operations, we based our emission estimates on a mass balance 
approach. This method is reasonably accurate, and we did not revise 
baseline emission estimates for PSH operations. This resulted in our 
estimate of metal HAP emission reductions to be changed to 14.4 tpy, 
compared to an estimate of 23 tpy.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

[[Page 411]]

proposed rule to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB 
suggestions or recommendations are documented and included in the 
public record. The OMB has informed EPA that it considers this final 
action nonsignificant. Therefore, it is not subject to further OMB 
review. The OMB was briefed on the responses to major comments, and was 
provided a copy of the regulation and preamble prior to publication. 
However, they did not request any changes in the final rule.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document (2072.01), and a copy may 
be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of 
Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by e-mail at 
[email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download 
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The final rule will require development and implementation of an 
OM&M plan, which will include inspections of the control devices but 
will not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the rule) is estimated to be 7,800 labor hours per year, at a total 
annual cost of $621,600. This estimate includes notifications that 
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; 
notifications of compliance status, including the results of 
performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do 
not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total 
capital/startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the 
ICR are estimated to be $1,000,000, with annualized costs of $377,900.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to: Review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. When the 
OMB approves the information collection requirements of the final rule, 
the EPA will amend the table in 40 CFR part 9 of currently approved ICR 
control numbers issued by OMB for various regulations.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The EPA has prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) 
in connection with the final rule. For purposes of assessing the 
impacts of today's final rule on small entities, a small entity is 
defined as (1) a small business as a lime manufacturing company with 
less than 500 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is 
a government of a city, county, town, school district or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite the 
determination that the final rule will have no significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, EPA prepared a Small Business 
Flexibility Analysis that has all the components of a FRFA. An FRFA 
examines the impact of the final rule on small entities. The Small 
Business Flexibility Analysis (which is included in the economic impact 
analysis) is available for review in the docket, and is summarized 
below.
    It should be noted that the small business impacts described below 
slightly overestimate the impacts for today's action, for they reflect 
the higher cost estimates ($22.4 million) associated with the proposed 
rule.
    Based on SBA's size definitions for the affected industries and 
reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 45 
companies owning potentially affected facilities as small businesses. 
Eight of these 45 companies manufacture beet sugar (which will not be 
subject to the final NESHAP), three of which are small firms. Further, 
an additional 3 of the 19 small companies will not be subject to the 
final NESHAP because they do not manufacture lime in a kiln (e.g., they 
are only depot or hydration facilities), and/or we do not expect them 
to be major sources. It is, therefore, expected that 13 small 
businesses will be subject to the final NESHAP. Although small 
businesses represent 40 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur 30 percent of the total industry 
annual compliance costs of $18.0 million.
    The economic impact analysis we prepared for the final NESHAP 
includes an estimate of the changes in product price and production 
quantities for the firms that the final NESHAP would affect. The 
analysis shows that of the facilities owned by potentially affected 
small firms, two may shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance 
with the final rule. Because of the nature of their production 
processes and existing controls, we expect these two firms will incur 
significantly higher compliance costs than the other small firms.
    Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be 
noted that in general, the burden on most small firms is low when 
compared to that of large firms. The average annual compliance costs 
for all small firms is $358,000, compared to $592,000 per year for 
large firms. If the two small firms expected to incur significantly 
higher control costs are excluded, the average annual compliance cost 
for the remaining firms

[[Page 412]]

will be $205,000, which is much less than the average control costs for 
large firms.
    The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have 
materially improved today's final rule. Economic analysis of provisions 
under earlier consideration prior to the rule's proposal indicated 
greater impacts on small businesses than those in today's final rule. 
For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the average 
total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $567,000 per small 
company (compared with $358,000 in today's final rule). About 85 
percent (11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur 
compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1 
percent of sales (compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in 
today's final rule). And, 77 percent (10 firms) of those small 
businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced 
impacts greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 31 percent of 
those small businesses in today's final rule).
    Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's 
final rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small 
entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609(b) of the RFA 
to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the 
small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule 
requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised 
of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small 
Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel 
solicited advice from eight small entity representatives (SER), 
including the National Lime Association (NLA) and member companies and 
non-member companies of the NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel 
distributed a package of descriptive and technical materials explaining 
the rule-in-progress to the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met 
with the SER to hear their comments on preliminary options for 
regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received 
written comments from the SER in response to both the outreach 
materials and the discussions at the meeting.
    Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the 
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the 
elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in 
the docket for the final rule.
    The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in 
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the 
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls.
    These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses:
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl 
work practice standard, invoking section 112(d)(4) of CAA.
    Response: The proposed rule did not include an emission standard 
for HCl. The final rule also contains no emission standard for HCl.
    [sbull] Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry 
should not be considered as emission units under the definition of 
affected source.
    Response: The MPO in the quarry were excluded from the definition 
of affected source in the proposed rule. They are also excluded in the 
final rule.
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the ``bubbling'' 
of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant, 
such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime 
plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each 
individual kiln and cooler.
    Response: The proposed rule defined the affected source as 
including all kilns and coolers (among other listed emission units) at 
the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average 
emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination. In 
the final rule we have retained averaging provisions with the following 
modifications. New kilns and existing kilns may be averaged together, 
new kilns must individually meet the 0.10 lb/tsf PM emission limit, and 
existing kilns subject to the 0.60 lb/tsf PM emission limit may not be 
included in any averaging scheme. Due to other changes in the rule, the 
changes in the averaging provisions do not increase the stringency of 
the final rule compared to the proposed rule.
    [sbull] Recommend that we request comment on establishing a 
subcategory for existing kilns that currently have wet scrubbers for PM 
control because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl 
emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard in the 
proposed rule.
    Response: We requested comment on this issue in the proposed rule. 
Based on the comments received, we determined that a separate 
subcategory for scrubber equipped kilns was not appropriate. However, 
we have included in the final rule separate standards for kilns with 
dry PM emissions control systems, and wet scrubbers. This change 
addresses the underlying concern of the original comment.
    [sbull] Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and 
emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the 
results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment 
on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial 
constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD.
    Response: We requested comment on these issues in the proposed rule 
and presented said analysis. We responded to all comments on these 
issues in the final rule.
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the 
ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source 
determinations.
    Response: The proposed rule included this provision. This provision 
has been retained in the final rule.
    [sbull] Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed 
rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP 
to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area 
source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues.
    Response: The preamble of the proposed rule contained this 
language. In the final rule, we do not specify that testing for all HAP 
is required. However, we do not specifically say it is precluded 
because these determinations are better made on a case-by-case basis by 
the permitting authority.
    [sbull] Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option 
of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on 
various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on 
what an appropriate opacity limit would be.
    Response: The preamble of the proposed rule solicited comment on 
these issues.
    [sbull] Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options 
or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time 
periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating 
compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with 
operating parameter limits using a two-tier approach; and the 
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be 
monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in 
lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the 
draft rule.
    Response: The preamble of the proposed rule solicited comment on 
these issues.
    [sbull] Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3 
and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental

[[Page 413]]

Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed 
from the proposed rule.
    Response: The proposed rule did not include this requirement. This 
requirement is also not present in today's final rule.
    [sbull] Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in 
modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a 
sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities 
reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to 
pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable 
opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's 
markets.
    Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations 
and analyses at proposal. In addition, we have performed additional 
economic sensitivity analyses for the final rule.
    In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed 
rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime 
manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small 
entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the 
Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under 
the CAA. These efforts are summarized below.
    [sbull] Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of 
which three are small businesses, will not be affected sources.
    [sbull] Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only 
will not be affected sources as well.
    [sbull] We proposed PM emission limits which allow the affected 
source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will 
meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations 
selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly 
beyond-the-MACT-floor options that we considered. An emission limit for 
mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond-the-
MACT-floor control option.
    [sbull] We proposed that compliance demonstrations for PSH 
operations be conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. This 
reduced the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the 
rule when implemented. Furthermore, we proposed the minimum performance 
testing frequency (every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements specified in the General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A).
    [sbull] Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small 
businesses will not be subject to the proposed standards because they 
are area sources.
    We received several comments on the economic analysis for the 
proposed rule. The majority of these comments related to the analysis 
in general, rather than the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. 
Two comments that specifically addressed small business concerns 
follow.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that EPA did not perform a 
sufficient sensitivity analysis of different price and supply 
elasticities in the EIA as recommended in the Panel's final report.
    Response: We estimated the market supply and demand elasticities 
for lime. The values from the preferred model for 1997 are very close 
to the primary elasticities used in the main text of the EIA for the 
proposed rule and are well within the range of elasticities used in the 
sensitivity analysis in Appendix B of the EIA for the proposed rule. In 
addition to the preferred model, numerous alternative models were 
estimated. As with any modeling exercise, there were some differences 
in results across different model specifications. However, the results 
were generally similar across specifications and there were no cases in 
which the estimated supply or demand elasticity fell outside the ranges 
currently used in the Appendix B sensitivity analysis included in the 
EIA. Thus, the current analysis adequately responds to SBREFA panel 
recommendations that a reasonable sensitivity analysis be employed and 
the empirical evidence is supportive of the current scenario presented 
in the main text.
    Comment: One commenter claimed that although EPA has indicated its 
rule will have larger impacts on small businesses than large ones, the 
disparity is even greater than EPA estimates. The reductions in pre-tax 
earnings presented in the EIA understate losses for small firms because 
the costs of implementation will be higher than EPA estimates and the 
price of lime will not increase. They also state that even if only 2 to 
3 of the 14 small lime firms close, that would still be closure of 14 
percent to 21 percent of the small lime firms in the domestic industry. 
This seems to be such a significant economic impact that it should 
encourage the EPA to seriously consider additional ways to minimize the 
impact on small businesses.
    Response: It is unclear what the basis for the first part of this 
comment is (it seems the same claims they are making for small firms 
would also apply to large firms). As far as the second part, to the 
extent that actual costs differ from EPA estimates, it is possible that 
the actual losses experienced by firms will be higher or lower than 
presented in the EIA. However, the costs of implementation currently 
used for analysis reflect EPA's best estimate of actual costs. The 
assertion that lime prices cannot increase in response to an increase 
in production costs is not credible.
    We also disagree that the number of small firms at risk of closure, 
2 to 3, can be considered a significant number in the context of 
SBREFA. In any case, EPA has seriously considered ways to minimize the 
impact on small businesses based on comments from industry and has 
substantially reduced the costs of the rule relative to the draft of 
the rule we were considering prior to the small business advocacy 
review panel. As previously discussed, EPA, along with the SBA and the 
OMB, convened a panel under the authority of SBREFA to talk with small 
business representatives on how to mitigate potential impacts to small 
businesses associated with the lime manufacturing NESHAP. This panel 
yielded a report that included many recommendations on how potential 
impacts to small businesses from the proposal could be mitigated. All 
of these recommendations are reflected in the final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally would be required to prepare a written statement, including a 
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative 
if the

[[Page 414]]

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have 
developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 
The plan will be required to provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more by 
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $22.4 million per year. The final rule contains no 
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's 
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 
of the UMRA.
    We have determined that the final rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires us to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult 
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to 
provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to 
the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS would 
be required to include a description of the extent of our prior 
consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of 
their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue 
the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft 
final NESHAP with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to 
Executive Order 12866, we would be required to include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that we have met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    The final rule 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, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule will not impose 
directly enforceable requirements on States, nor will it preempt them 
from adopting their own more stringent programs to control emissions 
from lime manufacturing facilities. Moreover, States are not required 
under the CAA to take delegation of Federal NESHAP and bear their 
implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often choose 
to do so. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no lime 
manufacturing plants located on tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to the final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we would be required to evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
    We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

    The final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Although compliance with the final rule 
could possibly lead to increased electricity consumption as sources may 
replace existing wet scrubbers with venturi wet scrubbers that require 
more electricity, the final rule will not require that venturi 
scrubbers be installed, and in fact, there are some alternatives that 
may decrease electrical demand. Further, the final rule will have no 
effect on the supply or distribution of energy. Although we considered 
certain fuels as potential bases for MACT, none of our MACT 
determinations are based on fuels. Finally, we acknowledge that an 
interpretation limiting fuel use to the top 6 percent of 'clean HAP' 
fuels (if they existed) could potentially have adverse implications on 
energy supply.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement

[[Page 415]]

activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 
through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency 
does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The final rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in the final rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent 
with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary 
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
5D, 9, 22, and 321. The search and review results have been documented 
and are placed in the docket (OAR-2002-0052) for the final rule.
    The three voluntary consensus standards described below were 
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the 
purposes of the final rule.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the final rule for its 
manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon 
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420-99, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is 
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the final 
rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns.
    Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of 
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per 
billion by volume and 100 parts per million by volume.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the final rule specifies 
that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, 
as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no 
moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM 
D6420-99 does not apply.
    As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in the final rule. The EPA 
will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-99. 
This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/
MS.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test 
Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the final rule 
provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142 
of the final rule are also addressed in the methodology.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the 
final rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 
15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of 
these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or 
surrogates subject to emission standards in the final rule were 
impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this 
rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this 
purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the docket 
for the final rule.
    Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of the final rule because they are under development by a 
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by 
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 
12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary 
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320.
    The standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has 
been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the 
ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-98. 
Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical 
equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could 
be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability.
    Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 63 list 
the EPA testing methods included in the final rule. Under Sec. Sec.  
63.7(f) and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source 
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or 
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing 
methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
SBREFA, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the 
agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes 
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report 
containing the final rule and other required information to the U.S 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General 
of the United States prior to publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final rule will be effective 
on January 5, 2004.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 25, 2003.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of the Federal Regulations is to be amended as follows:

[[Page 416]]

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows:

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

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations

63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other 
procedures must I use?
63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?
63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations standard?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission 
limitations standard?

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7131 What reports must I submit and when?
63.7132 What records must I keep?
63.7133 In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status?
63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits
Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Initial Compliance with 
Emission Limits
Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance 
Tests
Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance with 
Operating Limits
Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Periodic Monitoring for 
Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart AAAAA

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.7080  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. This subpart 
also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous 
compliance with the emission limitations.


Sec.  63.7081  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lime 
manufacturing plant (LMP) that is a major source, or that is located 
at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions, unless the LMP 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.
    (1) An LMP is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime 
product (calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead 
burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells or other 
calcareous substances.
    (2) A major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the 
potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) 
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams 
(25 tons) or more per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
    (b) [Reserved]


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

    (a) This subpart applies to each existing or new lime kiln(s) and 
their associated cooler(s), and processed stone handling (PSH) 
operations system(s) located at an LMP that is a major source.
    (b) 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) A new PSH operations system is the equipment in paragraph (g) 
of this section, 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.
    (d) A lime kiln or PSH operations system is reconstructed if it 
meets the criteria for reconstruction defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (e) An existing lime kiln is any lime kiln, and (if applicable) its 
associated lime cooler, that does not meet the definition of a new kiln 
of paragraph (b) of this section.
    (f) An existing PSH operations system is any PHS operations system 
that does not meet the definition of a new PSH operations system in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (g) A PSH operations system includes all equipment associated with 
PSH operations beginning at the processed stone storage bin(s) or open 
storage pile(s) and ending where the processed stone is fed into the 
kiln. It includes man-made processed stone storage bins (but not open 
processed stone storage piles), conveying system transfer points, bulk 
loading or unloading systems, screening operations, surge bins, bucket 
elevators, and belt conveyors. No other materials processing operations 
are subject to this subpart.
    (h) Nuisance dust collectors on lime coolers are part of the lime 
materials processing operations and are not covered by this subpart.
    (i) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart.
    (j) Open material storage piles are not subject to this subpart.


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 emission limitations no later than January 5, 
2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no 
later than July 5, 2004.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004, 
then you must comply with the 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.

[[Page 417]]

    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, 
and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later 
than January 5, 2007.
    (c) If you have an LMP that is an area source that increases its 
emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source 
of HAP, the deadlines specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section apply.
    (1) New affected sources at your LMP you must be in compliance with 
this subpart upon startup.
    (2) Existing affected sources at your LMP must be in compliance 
with this subpart within 3 years after your source becomes a major 
source of HAP.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.7130 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.7130 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations


Sec.  63.7090  What emission limitations must I meet?

    (a) You must meet each emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart 
that applies to you.

General Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) After your initial compliance date, 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.
    (b) You must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission 
(VE) limits in this subpart during the times specified in Sec.  
63.6(h)(1).
    (c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (d) You must prepare and implement for each LMP, a written 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring (OM&M) plan. You must submit 
the plan to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval 
as part of the application for a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 
permit. Any subsequent changes to the plan must be submitted to the 
applicable permitting authority for review and approval. Pending 
approval by the applicable permitting authority of an initial or 
amended plan, you must comply with the provisions of the submitted 
plan. Each plan must contain the following information:
    (1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to 
determine compliance, along with established operating limits or 
ranges, as applicable, for each emission unit.
    (2) A monitoring schedule for each emission unit.
    (3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each 
emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the 
applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2 
to this subpart, respectively.
    (4) Procedures for the proper installation, operation, and 
maintenance of monitoring devices or systems used to determine 
compliance, including:
    (i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring 
device;
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and 
reduction systems;
    (iii) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), and (4)(ii); 
and
    (iv) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d).
    (5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device 
parameters.
    (6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating 
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the 
operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, including:
    (i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of a deviation or 
excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and
    (ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time 
corrective action was initiated, and the time and date the corrective 
action was completed.
    (7) A maintenance schedule for each emission unit and control 
device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and 
recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (e) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3).

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete all 
applicable performance tests within January 5, 2007, according to the 
provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.7(a)(2) and 63.7114.
    (b) If you have a new affected source, and commenced construction 
or reconstruction between December 20, 2002, and January 5, 2004, you 
must demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission 
limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no later than 180 
calendar days after January 5, 2004 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.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between 
December 20, 2002, and January 5, 2004, and you chose to comply with 
the proposed emission limitation when demonstrating initial compliance, 
you must conduct a demonstration of compliance with the promulgated 
emission limitation within January 5, 2007 or after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. Sec.  63.7(a)(2)(ix) and 
63.7114.
    (d) For each initial compliance requirement in Table 3 to this 
subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 
hours, the 3-hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for 
emission units within existing affected sources at LMP begins at 12:01 
a.m. on the compliance date for existing affected sources, that is, the 
day following completion of the initial compliance demonstration, and 
ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.
    (e) For each initial compliance requirement in Table 3 to this 
subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 
hours, the 3-hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for 
emission units within new or reconstructed affected sources at LMP 
begins at 12:01 a.m. on the day following completion of the initial 
compliance demonstration, as required in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 
section, and ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.


Sec.  63.7111  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    You must conduct a performance test within 5 years following the 
initial performance test and within 5 years following each subsequent 
performance test thereafter.

[[Page 418]]

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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions 
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (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.
    (e) The emission rate of particulate matter (PM) from each lime 
kiln (and each lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the 
atmosphere from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using 
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.000

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, pounds per ton (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, grain/dry 
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dry standard 
cubic feet per hour (dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, grain/dscf. 
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 = Stone feed rate, tons per hour (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, 7000 grains per pound (grains/lb).

    (f)(1) If you choose to meet a weighted average emission limit as 
specified in item 4 of Table 1 to this subpart, you must calculate a 
combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and coolers within 
your LMP using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.001

Where:

ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers, lb/ton 
of stone feed.
Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/cooler 
combination i, lb/ton of stone feed.
Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, ton/hr.
n = Number of kilns you wish to include in averaging.

    (2) You do not have to include every kiln in this calculation, only 
include kilns you wish to average. Kilns that have a PM emission limit 
of 0.60 lb/tsf are ineligible for any averaging.
    (g) The weighted average PM emission limit from all kilns and 
coolers for which you are averaging must be calculated using Equation 3 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.002

Where:

ETN = Weighted average PM emission limit for all kilns and 
coolers being included in averaging at the LMP, lb/ton of stone feed.
Ej = PM emission limit (0.10 or 0.12) for kiln j, or for 
kiln/cooler combination j, lb/ton of stone feed.
Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, ton/hr.
m = Number of kilns and kiln/cooler combinations you are averaging at 
your LMP. You must include the same kilns in the calculation of 
ET and ETN. Kilns that have a PM emission limit 
of 0.60 lb/tsf are ineligible for any averaging.

    (h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test 
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant 
information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made 
available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing.
    (1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution 
control system;
    (2) Sampling location description(s);
    (3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any 
modifications to standard procedures;
    (4) Test results, including opacity;
    (5) Quality assurance procedures and results;
    (6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of 
standards, and calibration procedures;
    (7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory 
analyses;
    (8) Documentation of calculations;
    (9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and
    (10) Any other information required by the test method.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) You must establish any applicable 3-hour block average 
operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the 
applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance 
test and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test 
report.
    (2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15-minute period 
of each test run.
    (3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the 
average of all the 15-minute parameter values for the run.
    (4) Calculate the 3-hour operating limit by taking the average of 
the three test run averages.
    (k) For each building enclosing any PSH operations that is subject 
to a VE limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 18 in 
Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs (k)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of 
the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other 
than condensed water vapor.
    (2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from each 
side of the building with the sun or other light source generally at 
your back.
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must 
meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 in 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for 
fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 7 of Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this 
chapter according to item 17 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in 
accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) The minimum distance between the observer and the emission 
source shall be 4.57 meters (15 feet).
    (2) The observer shall, when possible, select a position that 
minimizes interference from other fugitive emission sources (e.g., road 
dust). The required observer position relative to the sun must be 
followed.
    (3) If you use wet dust suppression to control PM from PSH 
operations, a visible mist is sometimes generated by the spray. The 
water mist must not be confused with particulate matter emissions and 
is not to be considered VE. When a water mist of this nature is 
present, you must observe emissions at a point in the plume where the 
mist is no longer visible.

[[Page 419]]

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

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to your OM&M plan required 
by Sec.  63.7100(d) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, 
and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) as required by paragraph (g) of this section
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period.
    (2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least four 
equally spaced data values (or at least two, if that condition is 
included to allow for periodic calibration checks) for that hour from a 
CPMS that is not out of control according your OM&M plan, and use all 
valid data.
    (3) To calculate the average for each 3-hour block averaging 
period, you must use all valid data, and you must have at least 66 
percent of the hourly averages for that period using only hourly 
average values that are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-
control periods).
    (4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your OM&M plan.
    (5) You must continuously operate and maintain the CPMS according 
to the OM&M plan, including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary 
parts for routine repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the 
flow rate.
    (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (c)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to as possible a 
position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a 
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
    (4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1) 
through (8) of this section.
    (1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of 
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative PM 
emissions.
    (3) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when 
it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset 
level.
    (4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (5) For a positive-pressure fabric filter (FF), each compartment or 
cell must have a bag leak detector (BLD). For a negative-pressure or 
induced-air FF, the BLD must be installed downstream of the FF. If 
multiple BLD are required (for either type of FF), the detectors may 
share the system instrumentation and alarm.
    (6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained according to the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must 
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm 
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified 
in the OM&M plan required by Sec.  63.7100(d). In no event may the 
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official, as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that 
the FF has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (e)(1) through (8) of this 
section.
    (1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be 
capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams 
per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative 
PM emissions.
    (3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound 
automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions 
greater than a preset level.
    (4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (5) For a positive-pressure electrostatic precipitator (ESP), each 
compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative-pressure or 
induced-air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the 
ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required (for either type of ESP), 
the detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm.
    (6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained according to the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must 
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm 
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified 
in the OM&M plan required by Sec.  63.7100(d). In no event may the 
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official as 
defined in Sec.  63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that 
the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (f) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution 
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed 
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system 
is operating in accordance with the operating

[[Page 420]]

requirements in item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart and record the 
results of each inspection.
    (g) For each COMS used to monitor an add-on air pollution control 
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device.
    (2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required 
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to 
Performance Specification (PS)-1 of appendix B to part 60 of this 
chapter. Facilities that operate COMS installed on or before February 
6, 2001, may continue to meet the requirements in effect at the time of 
COMS installation unless specifically required to re-certify the COMS 
by their permitting authority.


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

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to 
Table 3 to this subpart. For existing lime kilns and their associated 
coolers, you may perform VE measurements in accordance with EPA Method 
9 of appendix A to part 60 in lieu of installing a COMS or PM detector 
if any of the conditions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 
section exist:
    (1) You use a FF for PM control, and the FF is under positive 
pressure and has multiple stacks; or
    (2) The control device exhausts through a monovent; or
    (3) The installation of a COMS in accordance with PS-1 of appendix 
B to part 60 is infeasible.
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7112(j) and Table 4 to this subpart. Alternative parameters 
may be monitored if approval is obtained according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.8(f)
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7130(e).

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.7120  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, required 
quality assurance or control activities (including, as applicable, 
calibration checks and required zero adjustments), and except for PSH 
operations subject to monthly VE testing, you must monitor continuously 
(or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the 
emission unit is operating.
    (c) Data recorded during the conditions described in paragraphs 
(c)(1) through (3) of this section may not be used either in data 
averages or calculations of emission or operating limits; or in 
fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement. You must use all 
the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation 
of the control device and associated control system.
    (1) Monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, preventive maintenance, 
calibration checks, and zero (low-level) and high-level adjustments;
    (2) Periods of non-operation of the process unit (or portion 
thereof), resulting in cessation of the emissions to which the 
monitoring applies; and
    (3) Start-ups, shutdowns, and malfunctions.


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you 
according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this 
subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the 
emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7131.
    (c) You must operate in accordance with the SSMP during periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (d) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will 
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e).
    (e) For each PSH operation subject to an opacity limit as specified 
in Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an 
opacity limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in Table 
6 to this subpart, and as follows:
    (1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of 
each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify 
if there are VE, other than condensed water vapor.
    (2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the 
affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at 
your back.
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must 
meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 of 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (f) For existing lime kilns and their associated coolers, you may 
perform VE measurements in accordance with EPA Method 9 of appendix A 
to part 60 in lieu of installing a COMS or PM detector if any of the 
conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) or (3) of this section exist:
    (1) You use a FF for PM control, and the FF is under positive 
pressure and has multiple stacks; or
    (2) The control device exhausts through a monovent; or
    (3) The installation of a COMS in accordance with PS-1 of appendix 
B to part 60 is infeasible.

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.7130  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5); 63.7(b) and (c); 63.8(e); (f)(4) and (6); and 63.9 
(a) through (j) that apply to you, by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before January 5, 2004, you must submit an initial notification 
not later than 120 calendar days after January 5, 2004.
    (c) If you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or 
after January 5, 2004, you must submit an initial notification not 
later than 120 calendar days after you start up your affected source.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin, as 
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii).

[[Page 421]]

    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3 
to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must 
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of 
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the 
initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this 
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the 
requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test 
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2).


Sec.  63.7131  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report listed in Table 7 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date specified in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section:
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.7083.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified 
for your affected source in Sec.  63.7083.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter, you may submit the first and subsequent compliance 
reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established 
instead of according to the dates specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) 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).
    (5) If there were no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that 
apply to you, the compliance report must include a statement that there 
were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting 
period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
systems (CMS) were out-of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a 
statement that there were no periods during which the CMS were out-of-
control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an 
affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the 
emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section. The deviations must be reported in 
accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.10(d).
    (1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation 
in this subpart, you must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (11) of this section. 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
affected source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A brief description of the process units.
    (9) A brief description of the CMS.
    (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit 
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec. Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required 
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report 
shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations 
in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a 
compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may 
have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit 
authority.

[[Page 422]]

Sec.  63.7132  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and 
opacity and VE observations as required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records in Sec.  63.6(h)(6) for VE 
observations.
    (c) You must keep the records required by Tables 5 and 6 to this 
subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation 
that applies to you.
    (d) You must keep the records which document the basis for the 
initial applicability determination as required under Sec.  63.7081.


Sec.  63.7133  In what form and for how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the 
date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may keep the 
records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.7140  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. When there is overlap 
between subpart A and subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the 
``Explanations'' column in Table 8, subpart AAAAA takes precedence.


Sec.  63.7141  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or by a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S. 
EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission 
limitations in Sec.  63.7090(a).
    (2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in Sec.  
63.7090(a).
    (3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7090(b).
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.7142  What are the requirements for claiming area source 
status?

    (a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must 
measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns, except 
as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, at your plant using 
either:
    (1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part,
    (2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or
    (3) ASTM Method D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of 
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust 
Sources--Impinger Method, provided that the provisions in paragraphs 
(a)(3)(i) through (vi) of this section are followed.
    (i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of 
samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section 
11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01.
    (ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set 
of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.003

Where:

RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation of sample 
pair a, percent.
C1a and C2a = The HCl concentrations, milligram/
dry standard cubic meter(mg/dscm), from the paired samples.

    (iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard 
deviation according to Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05JA04.004

Where:

RSDTA = The test average relative standard deviation, 
percent.
RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation for sample 
pair a.
p = The number of test runs, =3.

    (iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are 
invalid and the test must be repeated.
    (v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM 
Method D6735-01 is conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated 
according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01.
    (vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent, 
inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of 
this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be 
repeated.
    (b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of 
specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability 
determinations under Sec.  63.7081, you may use either:
    (1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
    (2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or
    (3) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass

[[Page 423]]

Spectrometry (GC/MS), provided that the provisions of paragraphs 
(b)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section are followed:
    (i) The target compound(s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99;
    (ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by 
volume and 100 parts per million by volume;
    (iii) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the additional 
system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in 
section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420-99, is conducted, met, documented, and 
submitted with the data report, even if there is no moisture condenser 
used or the compound is not considered water soluble; and
    (iv) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 
may not be used.
    (c) It is left to the discretion of the permitting authority 
whether or not idled kilns must be tested for (HCl) to claim area 
source status. If the facility has kilns that use common feed materials 
and fuel, are essentially identical in design, and use essentially 
identical emission controls, the permitting authority may also 
determine if one kiln can be tested, and the HCl emissions for the 
other essentially identical kilns be estimated from that test.


Sec.  63.7143  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detector system (BLDS) is a type of PM detector used on FF 
to identify an increase in PM emissions resulting from a broken filter 
bag or other malfunction and sound an alarm.
    Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports processed 
stone from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is 
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
    Bucket elevator means a processed stone conveying device consisting 
of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single 
or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached.
    Building means any frame structure with a roof.
    Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods, 
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM to a 
control device.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process 
operations at an LMP.
    Conveying system means a device for transporting processed stone 
from one piece of equipment or location to another location within a 
plant. Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt 
conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject 
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including any operating limit);
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is allowed by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, 
operating limit, or VE limit.
    Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, storage bin, 
conveying system transfer point, bulk loading or unloading operation, 
bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an LMP.
    Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture 
system.
    Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium 
hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product with water.
    Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln (or part of 
the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime 
produced by the kiln.
    Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater, 
used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln 
types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln, 
rotary hearth kiln, double-shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln.
    Lime manufacturing plant (LMP) means any plant which uses a lime 
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous 
material by calcination.
    Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process 
including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.
    Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium 
carbonate (referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium 
limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/or the double carbonate of both 
calcium and magnesium (referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or 
dolomite).
    Monovent means an exhaust configuration of a building or emission 
control device (e.g., positive pressure FF) that extends the length of 
the structure and has a width very small in relation to its length 
(i.e., length-to-width ratio is typically greater than 5:1). The 
exhaust may be an open vent with or without a roof, louvered vents, or 
a combination of such features.
    Particulate matter (PM) detector means a system that is 
continuously capable of monitoring PM loading in the exhaust of FF or 
ESP in order to detect bag leaks, upset conditions, or control device 
malfunctions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. A PM detector 
system includes, but is not limited to, an instrument that operates on 
triboelectric, light scattering, light transmittance, or other effects 
to continuously monitor relative particulate loadings. A BLDS is a type 
of PM detector.
    Positive pressure FF or ESP means a FF or ESP with the fan(s) on 
the upstream side of the control device.
    Process stone handling operations means the equipment and transfer 
points between the equipment used to transport processed stone, and 
includes, storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading 
or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt 
conveyors.
    Processed stone means limestone or other calcareous material that 
has been processed to a size suitable for feeding into a lime kiln.
    Screening operation means a device for separating material 
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more 
mesh surfaces (screens) in series and retaining oversize material on 
the mesh surfaces (screens).
    Stack emissions means the PM that is released to the atmosphere 
from a capture system or control device.
    Storage bin means a manmade enclosure for storage (including surge 
bins) of processed stone prior to the lime kiln.
    Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the 
material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor.
    Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced 
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM 
emissions from one or more emission units.

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63

[[Page 424]]



          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.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
               For . . .                          emission limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing lime kilns and their         PM emissions must not exceed
 associated lime coolers that did not     0.12 pounds per ton of stone
 have a wet scrubber installed and        feed (lb/tsf).
 operating prior to January 5, 2004.
2. Existing lime kilns and their         PM emissions must not exceed
 associated lime coolers that have a      0.60 lb/tsf. If at any time
 wet scrubber, where the scrubber         after January 5, 2004 the kiln
 itself was installed and operating       changes to a dry control
 prior to January 5, 2004.                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.
3. New lime kilns and their associated   PM emissions must not exceed
 lime coolers.                            0.10 lb/tsf.
4. All existing and new lime kilns and   Weighted average PM emissions
 their associated coolers at your LMP,    calculated according to Eq. 2
 and you choose to average PM             in Sec.   63.7112 must not
 emissions, except that any kiln that     exceed 0.12 lb/tsf (if you are
 is allowed to meet the 0.60 lb/tsf PM    averaging only existing kilns)
 emission limit is ineligible for         or 0.10 lb/tsf (if you are
 averaging.                               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 Eq. 3 in Sec.
                                          63.7112, except that no new
                                          kiln and its associated cooler
                                          considered alone may exceed an
                                          average PM emissions limit of
                                          0.10 lb/tsf.
5. Stack emissions from all PSH          PM emissions must not exceed
 operations at a new or existing          0.05 grams per dry standard
 affected source.                         cubic meter (g/dscm).
6. Stack emissions from all PSH          Emissions must not exceed 7
 operations at a new or existing          percent opacity.
 affected source, unless the stack
 emissions are discharged through a wet
 scrubber control device.
7. Fugitive emissions from all PSH       Emissions must not exceed 10
 operations at a new or existing          percent opacity.
 affected source, except as provided by
 item 8 of this Table 1.
8. All PSH operations at a new or        All of the individually
 existing affected source enclosed in a   affected PSH operations must
 building.                                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.
9. Each FF that controls emissions from  Emissions must not exceed 7
 only an individual, enclosed storage     percent opacity.
 bin.
10. Each set of multiple storage bins    You must comply with the
 at a new or existing affected source,    emission limits in items 5 and
 with combined stack emissions.           6 of this Table 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 2 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler   Maintain and operate the FF
 (if there is a separate exhaust to the   such that the BLDS or PM
 atmosphere from the associated lime      detector alarm condition does
 cooler) equipped with an FF.             not exist for more than 5
                                          percent of the total operating
                                          time in a 6-month period; and
                                          comply with the requirements
                                          in Sec.   63.7113(d) through
                                          (f) and Table 5 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 5
                                          to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet    Maintain the 3-hour block
 scrubber.                                exhaust gas stream pressure
                                          drop across the wet scrubber
                                          greater than or equal to the
                                          pressure drop operating limit
                                          established during the most
                                          recent PM performance test;
                                          and maintain the 3-hour block
                                          scrubbing liquid flow rate
                                          greater than the flow rate
                                          operating limit established
                                          during the most recent
                                          performance test.
3. Each lime kiln equipped with an       Install a PM detector and
 electrostatic precipitator.              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
                                          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
                                          5 to this subpart.
4. Each PSH operation subject to a PM    Maintain the 3-hour block
 limit which uses a wet scrubber.         average exhaust gas stream
                                          pressure drop across the wet
                                          scrubber greater than or equal
                                          to the pressure drop operating
                                          limit established during the
                                          PM performance test; and
                                          maintain the 3-hour block
                                          average scrubbing liquid flow
                                          rate greater than or equal to
                                          the flow rate operating limit
                                          established during the
                                          performance test.

[[Page 425]]

 
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 5 to this
                                          subpart.
6. Each emission unit equipped with an   a. Vent captured emissions
 add-on air pollution control device.     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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 3 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
            For . . .             emission limit . .    after following
                                           .           the requirements
                                                       in Sec.   63.7112
                                                             . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new or existing lime       PM emissions must   The kiln outlet PM
 kilns and their associated lime   not exceed 0.12     emissions (and if
 coolers (kilns/coolers).          lb/tsf for all      applicable,
                                   existing kilns/     summed with the
                                   coolers with dry    separate cooler
                                   controls, 0.60 lb/  PM emissions),
                                   tsf for existing    based on the PM
                                   kilns/coolers       emissions
                                   with wet            measured using
                                   scrubbers, 0.10     Method 5 in
                                   lb/tsf for all      appendix A to
                                   new kilns/          part 60 of this
                                   coolers, or a       chapter and the
                                   weighted average    stone feed rate
                                   calculated          measurement over
                                   according to Eq.    the period of
                                   3 in Sec.           initial
                                   63.7112.            performance test,
                                                       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).
2. Stack emissions from all PHS   PM emissions must   The outlet PM
 operations at a new or existing   not exceed 0.05 g/  emissions, based
 affected source.                  dscm.               on Method 5 or
                                                       Method 17 in
                                                       appendix A to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter, 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.
3. Stack emissions from all PSH   Emissions must not  Each of the thirty
 operations at a new or existing   exceed 7 percent    6-minute opacity
 affected source, unless the       opacity.            averages during
 stack emissions are discharged                        the initial
 through a wet scrubber control                        compliance
 device.                                               period, using
                                                       Method 9 in
                                                       appendix A to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter, does not
                                                       exceed the 7
                                                       percent opacity
                                                       limit. At least
                                                       thirty 6-minute
                                                       averages must be
                                                       obtained.
4. Fugitive emissions from all    Emissions must not  Each of the 6-
 PSH operations at a new or        exceed 10 percent   minute opacity
 existing affected source.         opacity.            averages during
                                                       the initial
                                                       compliance
                                                       period, using
                                                       Method 9 in
                                                       appendix A to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter, does not
                                                       exceed the 10
                                                       percent opacity
                                                       limit.
5. All PSH operations at a new    All of the          All the PSH
 or existing affected source,      individually        operations
 enclosed in building.             affected PSH        enclosed in the
                                   operations must     building have
                                   comply with the     demonstrated
                                   applicable PM and   initial
                                   opacity emission    compliance
                                   limitations for     according to the
                                   items 2 through 4   applicable
                                   of this Table 3,    requirements for
                                   or the building     items 2 through 4
                                   must comply with    of this Table 3;
                                   the following:      or if you are
                                   There must be no    complying with
                                   VE from the         the building
                                   building, except    emission
                                   from a vent, and    limitations,
                                   vent emissions      there are no VE
                                   must not exceed     from the building
                                   the emission        according to item
                                   limitations in      18 of Table 4 to
                                   items 2 and 3 of    this subpart and
                                   this Table 3.       Sec.
                                                       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 3.

[[Page 426]]

 
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 to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter, does not
                                                       exceed the 7
                                                       percent opacity
                                                       limit.
7. Each set of multiple storage   You must comply     You demonstrate
 bins with combined stack          with emission       initial
 emissions.                        limitations in      compliance
                                   items 2 and 3 of    according to the
                                   this Table 3.       requirements in
                                                       items 2 and 3 of
                                                       this Table 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table 4 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
              For . . .                     You must . . .            Using . . .         following requirements
                                                                                                  . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each associated  Select the location of   Method 1 or 1A of        Sampling sites must be
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    the sampling port and    appendix A to part 60    located at the outlet
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the     the number of traverse   of this chapter; and     of the control
 associated lime cooler.                ports.                   Sec.   63.6(d)(1)(i).    device(s) and prior to
                                                                                          any releases to the
                                                                                          atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each associated  Determine velocity and   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,    Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    volumetric flow rate.    2F, or 2G in appendix
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              A to part 60 of this
 associated lime cooler.                                         chapter.
3. Each lime kiln and each associated  Conduct gas molecular    Method 3, 3A, or 3B in   Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    weight analysis.         appendix A to part 60
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              of this chapter.
 associated lime cooler.
4. Each lime kiln and each associated  Measure moisture         Method 4 in appendix A   Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    content of the stack     to part 60 of this
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the     gas.                     chapter.
 associated lime cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each associated  Measure PM emissions...  Method 5 in appendix A   Conduct the test(s)
 lime cooler, if there is a separate                             to part 60 of this       when the source is
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              chapter.                 operating at
 associated lime cooler, and which                                                        representative
 uses a negative pressure PM control                                                      operating conditions
 device.                                                                                  in accordance with
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7(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 associated  Measure PM emissions...  Method 5D in appendix A  Conduct the test(s)
 lime cooler, if there is a separate                             to part 60 of this       when the source is
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              chapter.                 operating at
 associated lime cooler, and which                                                        representative
 uses a positive pressure FF or ESP.                                                      operating conditions
                                                                                          in accordance with
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7(e); if
                                                                                          there is a separate
                                                                                          lime cooler exhaust to
                                                                                          the atmosphere, you
                                                                                          must conduct the
                                                                                          Method 5 test of the
                                                                                          separate cooler
                                                                                          exhaust concurrently
                                                                                          with the kiln exhaust
                                                                                          test.
7. Each lime kiln....................  Determine the mass rate  Any suitable device....  Calibrate and maintain
                                        of stone feed to the                              the device according
                                        kiln during the kiln                              to manufacturer's
                                        PM emissions test.                                instructions; the
                                                                                          measuring device used
                                                                                          must be accurate to
                                                                                          within +/-5 percent of
                                                                                          the mass rate of stone
                                                                                          feed over its
                                                                                          operating range.

[[Page 427]]

 
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet  Establish the operating  Data for the gas stream  The continuous pressure
 scrubber.                              limit for the average    pressure drop            drop measurement
                                        gas stream pressure      measurement device       device must be
                                        drop across the wet      during the kiln PM       accurate within plus
                                        scrubber.                performance test.        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 Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet  Establish the operating  Data from the liquid     The continuous
 scrubber.                              limit for the average    flow rate measurement    scrubbing liquid flow
                                        liquid flow rate to      device during the kiln   rate measuring device
                                        the scrubber.            PM performance test.     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 Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF  Have installed and have  Standard operating       According to the
 or ESP that is monitored with a PM     operating the BLDS or    procedures               requirements in Sec.
 detector.                              PM detector prior to     incorporated into the    63.7113(d) or (e),
                                        the performance test.    OM&M plan.               respectively.
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a FF  Have installed and have  Standard operating       According to the
 or ESP that is monitored with a COMS.  operating the COMS       procedures               requirements in Sec.
                                        prior to the             incorporated into the    63.7113(g).
                                        performance test.        OM&M plan and as
                                                                 required by 40 CFR
                                                                 part 63, subpart A,
                                                                 General Provisions and
                                                                 according to PS-1 of
                                                                 appendix B to part 60
                                                                 of this chapter,
                                                                 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
 operation, vent from a building                                 in appendix A to part    be at least 1.70 dscm
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set of                            60 of this chapter.      (60 dscf); for Method
 multiple storage bins with combined                                                      5, if the gas stream
 stack emissions, which is subject to                                                     being sampled is at
 a PM emission limit.                                                                     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 [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).
13. Each stack emission from a PSH     Conduct opacity          Method 9 in appendix A   The test duration must
 operation, vent from a building        observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 3
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set of                            chapter.                 hours and you must
 multiple storage bins with combined                                                      obtain at least
 stack emissions, which is subject to                                                     thirty, 6-minute
 an opacity limit.                                                                        averages.
14. Each stack emissions source from   Establish the average    Data for the gas stream  The pressure drop
 a PSH operation subject to a PM or     gas stream pressure      pressure drop            measurement device
 opacity limit, which uses a wet        drop across the wet      measurement device       must be accurate
 scrubber.                              scrubber.                during the PSH           within plus or minus 1
                                                                 operation stack PM       percent; you must
                                                                 performance test.        collect the pressure
                                                                                          drop data during the
                                                                                          period of the
                                                                                          performance test and
                                                                                          determine the
                                                                                          operating limit
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112(j).
15. Each stack emissions source from   Establish the operating  Data from the liquid     The continuous
 a PSH operation subject to a PM or     limit for the average    flow rate measurement    scrubbing liquid flow
 opacity limit, which uses a wet        liquid flow rate to      device during the PSH    rate measuring device
 scrubber.                              the scrubber.            operation stack PM       must be accurate
                                                                 performance test.        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 Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112(j).

[[Page 428]]

 
16. Each FF that controls emissions    Conduct opacity          Method 9 in appendix A   The test duration must
 from only an individual, enclosed,     observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 1 hour
 new or existing storage bin.                                    chapter.                 and you must obtain
                                                                                          ten 6-minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any PSH    Conduct opacity          Method 9 in appendix A   The test duration must
 operation subject to an opacity        observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 3
 limit.                                                          chapter.                 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.
18. Each building enclosing any PSH    Conduct VE check.......  The specifications in    The performance test
 operation, that is subject to a VE                              Sec.   63.7112(k).       must be conducted
 limit.                                                                                   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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 5 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 that applies to you, according to
                          the following table.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                   For the following      demonstrate
            For . . .              operating limit .      continuous
                                          . .          compliance by . .
                                                               .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled by   Maintain the 3-     Collecting the wet
 a wet scrubber.                   hour block          scrubber
                                   average exhaust     operating data
                                   gas stream          according to all
                                   pressure drop       applicable
                                   across the wet      requirements in
                                   scrubber greater    Sec.   63.7113
                                   than or equal to    and reducing the
                                   the pressure drop   data according to
                                   operating limit     Sec.
                                   established         63.7113(a);
                                   during the PM       maintaining the 3-
                                   performance test;   hour block
                                   and maintain the    average exhaust
                                   3-hour block        gas stream
                                   average scrubbing   pressure drop
                                   liquid flow rate    across the wet
                                   greater than or     scrubber greater
                                   equal to the flow   than or equal to
                                   rate operating      the pressure drop
                                   limit established   operating limit
                                   during the          established
                                   performance test.   during the PM
                                                       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%).
2. Each lime kiln or lime cooler  a. Maintain and     (i) Operating the
 equipped with a FF and using a    operate the FF or   FF or ESP so that
 BLDS, and each lime kiln          ESP such that the   the alarm on the
 equipped with an ESP or FF        bag leak or PM      bag leak or PM
 using a PM detector.              detector alarm,     detection system
                                   is not activated    is not activated
                                   and alarm           and an alarm
                                   condition does      condition does
                                   not exist for       not exist for
                                   more than 5         more than 5
                                   percent of the      percent of the
                                   total operating     total operating
                                   time in each 6-     time in each 6-
                                   month period.       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.

[[Page 429]]

 
3. Each stack emissions source    Maintain the 3-     Collecting the wet
 from a PSH operation subject to   hour block          scrubber
 an opacity limit, which is        average exhaust     operating data
 controlled by a wet scrubber.     gas stream          according to all
                                   pressure drop       applicable
                                   across the wet      requirements in
                                   scrubber greater    Sec.   63.7113
                                   than or equal to    and reducing the
                                   the pressure drop   data according to
                                   operating limit     Sec.
                                   established         63.7113(a);
                                   during the PM       maintaining the 3-
                                   performance test;   hour block
                                   and maintain the    average exhaust
                                   3-hour block        gas stream
                                   average scrubbing   pressure drop
                                   liquid flow rate    across the wet
                                   greater than or     scrubber greater
                                   equal to the flow   than or equal to
                                   rate operating      the pressure drop
                                   limit established   operating limit
                                   during the          established
                                   performance test.   during the PM
                                                       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%).
4. For each lime kiln or lime     a. Maintain and     i. Installing,
 cooler equipped with a FF or an   operate the FF or   maintaining,
 ESP that uses a COMS as the       ESP such that the   calibrating and
 monitoring device.                average opacity     operating a COMS
                                   for any 6-minute    as required by 40
                                   block period does   CFR part 63,
                                   not exceed 15       subpart A,
                                   percent.            General
                                                       Provisions and
                                                       according to PS-1
                                                       of appendix B to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter, 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Periodic Monitoring for Compliance
                With Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
    [As required in Sec.   63.7121 you must periodically demonstrate
compliance with each opacity and VE limit that applies to you, according
                         to the following table]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                   For the following      demonstrate
            For . . .                  emission       ongoing compliance
                                   limitation . . .          . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each PSH operation subject to  a. 7-10 percent     (i) Conducting a
 an opacity limitation as          opacity,            monthly 1-minute
 required in Table 1 to this       depending on the    VE check of each
 subpart, or any vents from        PSH operation, as   emission unit in
 buildings subject to an opacity   required in Table   accordance with
 limitation.                       1 to this subpart.  Sec.
                                                       63.7121(e); the
                                                       check must be
                                                       conducted while
                                                       the affected
                                                       source is in
                                                       operation;
                                                      (ii) If no VE are
                                                       observed in 6
                                                       consecutive
                                                       monthly checks
                                                       for any emission
                                                       unit, you may
                                                       decrease the
                                                       frequency of VE
                                                       checking from
                                                       monthly to semi-
                                                       annually for that
                                                       emission unit; if
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       during any
                                                       semiannual check,
                                                       you must resume
                                                       VE checking of
                                                       that emission
                                                       unit on a monthly
                                                       basis and
                                                       maintain that
                                                       schedule until no
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       in 6 consecutive
                                                       monthly checks;
                                                      (iii) If no VE are
                                                       observed during
                                                       the semiannual
                                                       check for any
                                                       emission unit,
                                                       you may decrease
                                                       the frequency of
                                                       VE checking from
                                                       semi-annually to
                                                       annually for that
                                                       emission unit; if
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       during any annual
                                                       check, you must
                                                       resume VE
                                                       checking of that
                                                       emission unit on
                                                       a monthly basis
                                                       and maintain that
                                                       schedule until no
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       in 6 consecutive
                                                       monthly checks;
                                                       and

[[Page 430]]

 
                                                      (iv) If VE are
                                                       observed during
                                                       any VE check, you
                                                       must conduct a 6-
                                                       minute test of
                                                       opacity in
                                                       accordance with
                                                       Method 9 of
                                                       appendix A to
                                                       part 60 of this
                                                       chapter; you must
                                                       begin the Method
                                                       9 test within 1
                                                       hour of any
                                                       observation of VE
                                                       and the 6-minute
                                                       opacity reading
                                                       must not exceed
                                                       the applicable
                                                       opacity limit.
2. Any building subject to a VE   a. No VE..........  (i) Conducting a
 limit, according to item 8 of                         monthly VE check
 Table 1 to this subpart.                              of the building,
                                                       in accordance
                                                       with the
                                                       specifications in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.7112(k); the
                                                       check must be
                                                       conducted while
                                                       all the enclosed
                                                       PSH operations
                                                       are operating;
                                                      (ii) The check for
                                                       each affected
                                                       building must be
                                                       at least 5
                                                       minutes, with
                                                       each side of the
                                                       building and roof
                                                       being observed
                                                       for at least 1
                                                       minute;
                                                      (iii) If no VE are
                                                       observed in 6
                                                       consecutive
                                                       monthly checks of
                                                       the building, you
                                                       may decrease the
                                                       frequency of
                                                       checking from
                                                       monthly to semi-
                                                       annually for that
                                                       affected source;
                                                       if VE are
                                                       observed during
                                                       any semi-annual
                                                       check, you must
                                                       resume checking
                                                       on a monthly
                                                       basis and
                                                       maintain that
                                                       schedule until no
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       in 6 consecutive
                                                       monthly checks;
                                                       and
                                                      (iv) If no VE are
                                                       observed during
                                                       the semi-annual
                                                       check, you may
                                                       decrease the
                                                       frequency of
                                                       checking from
                                                       semi-annually to
                                                       annually for that
                                                       affected source;
                                                       and if VE are
                                                       observed during
                                                       any annual check,
                                                       you must resume
                                                       checking of that
                                                       emission unit on
                                                       a monthly basis
                                                       and maintain that
                                                       schedule until no
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       in 6 consecutive
                                                       monthly checks
                                                       (the source is in
                                                       compliance if no
                                                       VE are observed
                                                       during any of
                                                       these checks).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
   [As required in Sec.   63.7131, you must submit each report in this
                       table that applies to you.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must     You must submit
     You must submit a . . .         contain . . .     the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report............  a. If there are no  Semiannually
                                   deviations from     according to the
                                   any emission        requirements in
                                   limitations         Sec.
                                   (emission limit,    63.7131(b).
                                   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    Semiannually
                                   no periods during   according to the
                                   which the CMS,      requirements in
                                   including any       Sec.
                                   operating           63.7131(b).
                                   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      according to the
                                   any emission        requirements in
                                   limitation          Sec.
                                   (emission limit,    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.
                                   operating           63.7131(b).
                                   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

[[Page 431]]

 
                                  e. If you had a     Semiannually
                                   startup, shutdown   according to the
                                   or malfunction      requirements in
                                   during the          Sec.
                                   reporting period    63.7131(b).
                                   and you took
                                   actions
                                   consistent with
                                   your SSMP, the
                                   compliance report
                                   must include the
                                   information in
                                   Sec.
                                   63.10(d)(5)(i).
2. An immediate startup,          Actions taken for   By fax or
 shutdown, and malfunction         the event.          telephone within
 report if you had a startup,                          2 working days
 shutdown, or malfunction during                       after starting
 the reporting period that is                          actions
 not consistent with your SSMP.                        inconsistent with
                                                       the SSMP.
3. An immediate startup,          The information in  By letter within 7
 shutdown, and malfunction         Sec.                working days
 report if you had a startup,      63.10(d)(5)(ii).    after the end of
 shutdown, or malfunction during                       the event unless
 the reporting period that is                          you have made
 not consistent with your SSMP.                        alternative
                                                       arrangements with
                                                       the permitting
                                                       authority. See
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.10(d)(5)(ii).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 8 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.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Summary of             Am I subject to this
             Citation                    requirement                requirement?                Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1(a)(1)-(4).............  Applicability         Yes.............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(5).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(6).................  Applicability         Yes.............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)..........  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)........  Applicability.......  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.1(b)(1).................  Initial               Yes.............................  Sec.  Sec.   63.7081
                                     Applicability                                           and 63.7142 specify
                                     Determination.                                          additional
                                                                                             applicability
                                                                                             determination
                                                                                             requirements.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3).................  Initial               Yes.............................
                                     Applicability
                                     Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1).................  Applicability After   Yes.............................
                                     Standard
                                     Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2).................  Permit Requirements.  No..............................  Area sources not
                                                                                             subject to subpart
                                                                                             AAAAA, except all
                                                                                             sources must make
                                                                                             initial
                                                                                             applicability
                                                                                             determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.1(c)(4)-(5).............  Extensions,           Yes.............................
                                     Notifications.
Sec.   63.1(d)....................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.1(e)....................  Applicability of      Yes.............................
                                     Permit Program.
Sec.   63.2.......................  Definitions.........  ................................  Additional
                                                                                             definitions in Sec.
                                                                                               63.7143.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)................  Units and             Yes.............................
                                     Abbreviations.
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)..........  Prohibited            Yes.............................
                                     Activities.
Sec.   3.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)...........  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.4(b)-(c)................  Circumvention,        Yes.............................
                                     Severability.
Sec.   63.5(a)(1)-(2).............  Construction/         Yes.............................
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(b)(1).................  Compliance Dates....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.5(b)(2).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.5(b)(3)-(4).............  Construction          Yes.............................
                                     Approval,
                                     Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6).................  Applicability.......  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.5(c)....................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)-(4).............  Approval of           Yes.............................
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(e)....................  Approval of           Yes.............................
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.5(f)(1)-(2).............  Approval of           Yes.............................
                                     Construction/
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.   63.6(a)....................  Compliance for        Yes.............................
                                     Standards and
                                     Maintenance.
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(5).............  Compliance Dates....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(b)(6).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.6(b)(7).................  Compliance Dates....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2).............  Compliance Dates....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)..........  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.6(c)(5).................  Compliance Dates....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(d)....................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1).................  Operation &           Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.7100
                                     Maintenance.                                            for OM&M
                                                                                             requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).................  ....................  No..............................

[[Page 432]]

 
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).................  Startup, Shutdown     Yes.............................
                                     Malfunction Plan.
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)-(3).............  Compliance with       Yes.............................
                                     Emission Standards.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)..........  Alternative Standard  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)-(2).............  Opacity/VE Standards  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.6(h)(3).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i).......  Opacity/VE Standards  Yes.............................  This requirement
                                                                                             only applies to
                                                                                             opacity and VE
                                                                                             performance checks
                                                                                             required in Table 4
                                                                                             to subpart AAAAA.
Sec.   63.6(h)(5) (ii)-(iii)......  Opacity/VE Standards  No..............................  Test durations are
                                                                                             specified in
                                                                                             subpart AAAAA;
                                                                                             subpart AAAAA 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       Yes.............................
                                     Opacity and VE.
Sec.   63.6(h)(9).................  Adjustment of         Yes.............................
                                     Opacity Limit.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14).........  Extension of          Yes.............................
                                     Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)................  Extension of          Yes.............................
                                     Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(j)....................  Exemption from        Yes.............................
                                     Compliance.
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(a)(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/    Yes.............................
                                     Test Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d)....................  Testing Facilities..  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)-(4).............  Conduct of Tests....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.7(f)....................  Alternative Test      Yes.............................
                                     Method.
Sec.   63.7(g)....................  Data Analysis.......  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.7(h)....................  Waiver of Tests.....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1).................  Monitoring            Yes.............................  See Sec.   63.7113.
                                     Requirements.
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)-(3).............  Conduct of            Yes.............................
                                     Monitoring.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)-(3).............  CMS Operation/        Yes.............................
                                     Maintenance.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4).................  CMS Requirements....  No..............................  See Sec.   63.7121.
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii).........  Cycle Time for COM    Yes.............................  No CEMS are required
                                     and CEMS.                                               under subpart
                                                                                             AAAAA; see Sec.
                                                                                             63.7113 for CPMS
                                                                                             requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5).................  Minimum COM           Yes.............................  COM not required.
                                     procedures.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6).................  CMS Requirements....  No..............................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8).............  CMS Requirements....  Yes.............................
Sec.   63.8(d)....................  Quality Control.....  No..............................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(e)....................  Performance           No..............................
                                     Evaluation for CMS.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)..........  Alternative           Yes.............................
                                     Monitoring Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6).................  Alternative to        No..............................
                                     Relative Accuracy
                                     test.
Sec.   63.8(g)(1)-(g)(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               Yes.............................
                                     Notifications.
Sec.   63.9(c)....................  Request for           Yes.............................
                                     Compliance
                                     Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d)....................  New Source            Yes.............................
                                     Notification for
                                     Special Compliance
                                     Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e)....................  Notification of       Yes.............................
                                     Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f)....................  Notification of VE/   Yes.............................  This requirement
                                     Opacity Test.                                           only applies to
                                                                                             opacity and VE
                                                                                             performance tests
                                                                                             required in Table 4
                                                                                             to subpart AAAAA.
                                                                                             Notification not
                                                                                             required for VE/
                                                                                             opacity test under
                                                                                             Table 6 to subpart
                                                                                             AAAAA.
Sec.   63.9(g)....................  Additional CMS        No..............................  Not required for
                                     Notifications.                                          operating parameter
                                                                                             monitoring.
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)..........  Notification of       Yes.............................
                                     Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(h)(4).................  ....................  No..............................
Sec.   63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)..........  Notification of       Yes.............................
                                     Compliance Status.
Sec.   63.9(i)....................  Adjustment of         Yes.............................
                                     Deadlines.
Sec.   63.9(j)....................  Change in Previous    Yes.............................
                                     Information.

[[Page 433]]

 
Sec.   63.10(a)...................  Recordkeeping/        Yes.............................  See Sec.  Sec.
                                     Reporting General                                       63.7131 through
                                     Requirements.                                           63.7133.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii)....  Records.............  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 6 to subpart
                                                                                             AAAAA, 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)................  Startup, Shutdown,    Yes.............................
                                     Malfunction Reports.
Sec.   63.10(e)...................  Additional CMS        No..............................  See specific
                                     Reports.                                                requirements in
                                                                                             subpart AAAAA, see
                                                                                             Sec.   63.7131.
Sec.   63.10(f)...................  Waiver for            Yes.............................
                                     Recordkeeping/
                                     Reporting.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)...............  Control Device        No..............................  Flares not
                                     Requirements.                                           applicable.
Sec.   63.12(a)-(c)...............  State Authority and   Yes.............................
                                     Delegations.
Sec.   63.13(a)-(c)...............  State/Regional        Yes.............................
                                     Addresses.
Sec.   63.14(a)-(b)...............  Incorporation by      No..............................
                                     Reference.
Sec.   63.15(a)-(b)...............  Availability of       Yes.............................
                                     Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-23057 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P