[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44960-44992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12588]



[[Page 44959]]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 143

July 24, 2020

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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





40 CFR Part 63





National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 143 / Friday, July 24, 2020 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 44960]]


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

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-10009-60-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT08


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing source category regulated 
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants 
(NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments 
include new provisions requiring electronic reporting. We are 
finalizing our proposed determination that the risks are acceptable and 
that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. We determined that there are no developments in 
practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate 
revisions to the standards.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 24, 2020. The incorporation 
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has 
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not 
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of 
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was 
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of 
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide 
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a 
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand 
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates 
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us 
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-5426; and email address: 
eddinger.jim@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the risk 
modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental 
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; and email 
address: hirtz.james@epa.gov. For information about the applicability 
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of 
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-6266; and email 
address: ayres.sara@epa.gov.

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

ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FF fabric filter
FTIR Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrofluoric acid
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OM&M operations, maintenance, and monitoring
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specification
PSH processed stone handling
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standard

    Background information. On September 16, 2019, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP based on our RTR. In 
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We 
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments is available in Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. A ``track 
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the 
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Lime Manufacturing source category and how does 
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

[[Page 44961]]

    C. What changes did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source 
category in our September 16, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions 
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source 
Category
    B. Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category
    C. SSM for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category
    D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category
    E. IBR
    F. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Lime Manufacturing 
source category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the 
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and 
key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information 
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites 
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by September 22, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary 
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then 
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' 
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a 
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any 
combination of

[[Page 44962]]

HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect 
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited 
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors 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 five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA 
section 112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 
2008) (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk 
rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP on January 
5, 2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities 
that use a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by 
calcination. The source category covered by this MACT standard 
currently includes 35 facilities.
    As promulgated in 2004, the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from all 
new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-
located with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime 
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 
factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Other captive lime 
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills 
and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the NESHAP. See 67 
FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations. A lime 
manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to 
produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by 
calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that 
use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes 
as the feedstock.
    The NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: Each lime kiln 
and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling 
(PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all 
equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone 
storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process 
stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage 
bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system 
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening 
operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The 
materials processing operations associated with lime products, lime 
kiln dust handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing 
operations, and fuels are not subject to the NESHAP. Finally, lime 
hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not included under 
the definition of affected source under the NESHAP.
    The NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for 
lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. The NESHAP also 
established opacity limits for PSH operations without stacks and for 
kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric 
filters (FF). For kilns equipped with wet scrubbers, the NESHAP 
established scrubbing liquid flow rate and exhaust gas stream pressure 
drop limits. PM serves as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible 
emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as 
a surrogate for non-volatile and semivolatile HAP metals. Refer to 
section II.B of the proposal preamble (84 FR 48711, September 16, 2019) 
for additional information on the HAP emissions regulated by the 
NESHAP.

C. What changes did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source 
category in our September 16, 2019, proposal?

    On September 16, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP, 40 CFR part 
63, subpart AAAAA, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In 
the proposed rule, we proposed:
     No revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the 
RTR;
     revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to 
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club 
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions 
that exempted source owners and operators from the requirement to 
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards 
during periods of SSM;

[[Page 44963]]

     a requirement for electronic submittal of notifications, 
semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which includes performance 
test reports); and
     IBR of alternative test methods and references.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Lime Manufacturing source 
category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, 
including revising the SSM provisions of the NESHAP; a requirement for 
electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, compliance 
reports, and performance test reports; adding an alternative test 
method to EPA Method 320; and IBR of alternative test methods and 
references to updated alternative test methods. This action also 
reflects several changes to the September 2019 proposal in 
consideration of comments received during the public comment period 
described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Lime Manufacturing source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA NESHAP 
based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that risks 
from the source category are acceptable, the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards 
are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA 
received no new data or other information during the public comment 
period that causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore, 
we are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA 
section 112(f), and we are readopting the existing standards.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Lime Manufacturing source category?

    We determined that there are no developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies that necessitate revisions to the 
MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not 
finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during 
periods of SSM?

    The EPA is finalizing, with some revisions, the proposed amendments 
to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP to remove and revise provisions 
related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in 
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP 
during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM 
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under 
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be 
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's 
requirement that there must always be a CAA section 112 standard that 
applies. We are finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM exemption 
in this rule. As detailed in section IV.D of the proposal preamble (84 
FR 48727, September 16, 2019), we proposed to require that the emission 
limitations apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.7100(a)), consistent with 
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008).
    We have also revised Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part 63 (the 
General Provisions applicability table) in several respects, as is 
explained in more detail below in section IV.C. For example, we have 
eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement 
that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and 
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the SSM 
exemption as described in detail in the proposal and summarized below 
in section IV.C. As discussed in the proposal preamble, these revisions 
are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7100(a) that the 
standards apply at all times. Refer to section IV.C of this preamble 
for a detailed discussion of these amendments.
    The EPA is finalizing standards for startup and shutdown that 
differ in some respects from the startup and shutdown standards that 
were proposed. Changes from the proposal to the standards for periods 
of startup and shutdown being finalized reflect the EPA's re-evaluation 
of appropriate startup and shutdown standards in light of public 
comments. The EPA's rationale for those changes is discussed in section 
IV.C. below.
    The proposed definition of ``Startup'' has been revised by changing 
the wording from ``lime product'' to ``on-specification lime product'' 
and adding an alternate ending to startup. Commenters stated that the 
term ``lime product'' is not specific enough and that off-specification 
product is discharged almost simultaneously upon startup. In addition, 
the EPA is not finalizing the proposed work practices for periods of 
startup. For periods of startup, the EPA has instead established 
opacity emission limits for kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs. The EPA is 
not establishing different standards for kilns equipped with wet 
scrubbers during periods of startup and such kilns must comply with the 
same standard that apply at all other times. Also, during shutdown, 
kilns equipped with FFs, ESPs, or wet scrubbers must comply with the 
same standards that apply during normal operation. (See Table 2 of 40 
CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA--Startup and Shutdown Emission Limits).
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing different standards for 
malfunctions and sources must meet applicable standards during periods 
of malfunction. As discussed in the September 16, 2018, proposal 
preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions 
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into 
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the 
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. Refer to 
section IV.D of the proposal preamble for further discussion of the 
EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions.

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

    Consistent with the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the electronic 
reporting requirements, specifically that owners or operators of lime 
manufacturing plants submit electronic copies of required performance 
test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance 
reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
    We are finalizing an alternative test method to EPA Method 320 and 
incorporating several test methods by reference, as discussed further 
in section IV.E of this preamble. We are also finalizing additional 
changes that address technical and editorial corrections, as proposed 
and as described in section IV.F of this preamble.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on July 24, 2020. The compliance date for the 
revised requirements for affected sources that commenced construction 
or reconstruction on or before September 16, 2019, is January 20, 2021, 
with the exception of the vacated SSM exemptions contained in 40 CFR 
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We are revising

[[Page 44964]]

Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA to clarify that for all 
affected sources, these exemptions do not apply given the court vacatur 
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The compliance 
date for the revised requirements for affected sources that commence 
construction or reconstruction after September 16, 2019, is July 24, 
2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. We are finalizing 
changes, as proposed, that would impact ongoing compliance requirements 
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As discussed elsewhere in this 
preamble, we are finalizing the requirement that performance test 
results, performance evaluation reports, and the semiannual reports 
using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also 
finalizing changes to the requirements for SSM. For example, we are 
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard 
during SSM periods and removing the requirement to develop and 
implement an SSM plan, as proposed. Our experience with similar 
industries that have been required to convert reporting mechanisms, 
install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar 
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically 
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission 
capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert 
logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting 
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more 
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete 
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows 
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period 
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements; 
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the required 
standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule 
and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and 
recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations 
to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion 
that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements 
would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates 
would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for 
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA 
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance 
period practicable, and, thus, is finalizing the requirement that 
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this 
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's 
effective date.

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

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and 
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions 
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the 
September 16, 2019, proposed rule for the Lime Manufacturing source 
category (84 FR 48708). The results of the risk assessment are 
presented briefly in Table 1 of this preamble and in the risk report 
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Plants 
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review 
Proposed Rule, and sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 
48708, September 16, 2019) available in the docket for this action.

                                 Table 1--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Lime Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Maximum individual    Population at increased  Annual cancer incidence      Maximum chronic
                                       cancer risk (in 1     risk of cancer >= 1-in-  (cases per year)  based    noncancer TOSHI \4\
                                     million) \3\  based on  1  million based on . .          on . . .              based on . . .           Maximum
                                             . . .                      .            --------------------------------------------------  screening acute
     Number of facilities \2\      --------------------------------------------------                                                   noncancer HQ \5\
                                      Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable    based on actual
                                     emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions level
                                       level       level        level       level        level       level        level       level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35................................           1            2          12          450       0.001        0.003        0.04         0.05         0.6 (REL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 35 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Lime Manufacturing source category is the
  respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1-hour dose-response value, the recommended exposure limit (REL) for elemental mercury.
  When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based 
on actual emissions, show the estimated maximum individual cancer risk 
(MIR) posed by the 35 facilities is 1-in-1 million, with metals, 
aldehydes, and organic HAP emissions from the lime kiln and cooler 
exhaust as the major contributors to the risk. The total estimated 
cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer 
cases per year, or one excess case every 1,000 years. About 12 people 
are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 
million based on actual emissions from HAP emitted from the 35 
facilities in this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer 
hazard index (HI) for the source category is estimated to be less than 
1 (0.04) based on actual emissions of hydrochloric acid (HCl), nickel 
compounds, and acrolein emitted from lime kiln and cooler exhaust. No 
one is estimated to have a TOSHI greater than 1 based on actual 
emissions.

[[Page 44965]]

    The EPA also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions 
allowed by the MACT standard, or ``MACT-allowable emissions.'' Risk 
results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable 
emissions indicate that the cancer MIR is 2-in-1 million with metals, 
aldehydes, and organic HAP emissions from lime kiln and cooler exhaust 
driving the risks, and that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value 
is 0.05 with HCl, nickel compounds, and acrolein emissions from lime 
kiln and cooler exhaust driving the TOSHI. The total cancer incidence 
estimated based on allowable emissions from this source category is 
0.003 excess cancer cases per year or one excess case every 333 years. 
Based on MACT-allowable emission rates, approximately 450 people are 
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million. No people are 
estimated to have a noncancer HI above 1 based on allowable emissions.
    For the Lime Manufacturing source category, the maximum acute HQ is 
0.6 based on the REL, driven by actual emissions of elemental mercury. 
By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of 
exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for 
repeated exposures.
    We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the 
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are 
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Lime Manufacturing Plants Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk 
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and section IV of the proposal 
preamble (84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019) available in the docket for 
this action. A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or 
a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end 
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For this source category the 
highest screening values were from mercury emissions, with a Tier 2 
screening value of 5 and a Tier 3 screening value of 2 for this 
noncarcinogen. We are confident that if a refined multipathway risk 
assessment was conducted, the HQ for mercury would be lower than 2. 
Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in 
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule. Dioxin and arsenic emissions resulted in a Tier 2 cancer 
screening value of 20, which means that we are confident that the 
multipathway cancer risk is lower than 20-in-1 million.
    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the 
Tier 3 assessment for mercury (to a site-specific assessment) or beyond 
the Tier 2 cancer screening assessment. As explained above, the mercury 
screening value of 2 is a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard 
may be and can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ 
would be lower than 2. Similarly, we are confident that the excess 
cancer risk is less than 20-in-1 million, and evaluation under Tier 3 
or a site-specific assessment would further reduce the estimated risk. 
Further, risk results from four site-specific mercury assessments the 
EPA has conducted for four RTR source categories resulted in noncancer 
HQs that range from 50 times to 800 times lower than the respective 
Tier 2 mercury screening value for those facilities (refer to Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\2\ Based on our 
review of these analyses, we expect if we were to perform a site-
specific assessment for the Lime Manufacturing source category, the 
mercury HQ would be at least a one order of magnitude less than the 
Tier 2 non-cancer screening value for mercury. Thus, the EPA is 
confident that the mercury HQ would be less than 1, if further refined 
to incorporate enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model 
boundary identification with improved soil/water run-off calculations 
and AERMOD deposition outputs used in the TRIM.FaTE model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source Category in Support 
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel 
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 
Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018 
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the 
Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source 
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the 
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) level for lead 
(0.15 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m\3\), arithmetic mean 
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead 
concentration, 0.0007 mg/m\3\, is far below the NAAQS level for lead, 
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
    The EPA also conducted an environmental risk screening assessment 
for the Lime Manufacturing source category for the following 
pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and furans (D/F), HCl, hydrogen 
fluoride (HF), lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride), 
and polycyclic organic matter (POM). In the Tier 1 screening analysis 
for HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment 
(PB-HAP) (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic, 
cadmium, and POM emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological 
benchmarks evaluated. D/F emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at 31 
facilities for a surface soil benchmark by a maximum screening value of 
30. Divalent mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following 
benchmarks: Sediment threshold level (one facility), surface soil 
threshold level--plant communities (25 facilities), and surface soil 
threshold level--invertebrate communities (32 facilities) by a maximum 
screening value of 20. Methyl mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances 
for the following benchmarks: Fish (avian/piscivores) NOAEL--Merganser 
(one facility), surface soil no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) 
for mammalian insectivores--shrew (13 facilities), and surface soil 
NOAEL for avian ground insectivores--woodcock (33 facilities) by a 
maximum screening value of 40. A Tier 2 screening analysis was 
performed for D/F, divalent mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In 
the Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the 
ecological benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants. For lead, we 
did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl 
and HF, the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e., 
the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling 
domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each 
individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site 
data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks 
for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk 
screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as 
a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide actual emissions was 
performed to provide context for the source category risks. The maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 35 facilities, based on 
facility-wide emissions, is 1-in-1 million (estimated for three 
facilities), with arsenic, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel 
emissions from fugitive PSH operations driving the risk.

[[Page 44966]]

The total estimated cancer incidence from facility-wide emissions is 
0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 250 years. 
Approximately 30 people are estimated to have cancer risk equal to 1-
in-1 million from facility-wide emissions. The maximum facility-wide 
chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1 (0.4), mainly 
driven by emissions of HCl from a facility-wide fugitive area source.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that 
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a 
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual 
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km) 
and within 50 km of the facilities. The results of the Lime 
Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicated that 
emissions from the source category expose approximately 12 people to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk 
population indicated that three of the 10 demographic groups (White, 
African American and people below the poverty level) that are living 
within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceeded the 
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. The 
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented 
in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of 
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing 
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability 
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source 
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides 
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more 
stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental 
effect, by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other 
relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk 
factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and 
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other 
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce 
risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed 
that the 2004 Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP requirements provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on the results 
of our environmental risk screening assessment, we also proposed that 
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Lime Manufacturing source 
category?
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations 
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse 
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action. 
The EPA received comments in support of and opposed to the proposed 
risk review and our determination that no revisions were warranted 
under CAA section 112(f)(2). Key comments and responses are discussed 
below.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there are substantial health 
threats from the lime manufacturing industry. The commenter stated that 
it is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to do nothing to 
reduce any of these emissions or resulting health threats from lime 
manufacturing. The commenter stated that the EPA may not lawfully or 
rationally find health risks to be ``acceptable'' under CAA section 
112(f)(2) when the record shows the opposite, and the EPA has ignored 
significant health impacts. The commenter stated that the EPA's 
proposal is incomplete and based on analyses that underestimate and 
ignore the health risks from the toxic pollution that lime 
manufacturing facilities emit into communities.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. Results of the EPA's 
risk assessment for the Lime Manufacturing source category indicate 
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the 
individual most exposed are less than or equal to 2-in-1 million, well 
below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The 
actual and allowable inhalation noncancer risks to the individual most 
exposed are below a HQ of 1. Based on the conservative nature of the 
multipathway screens, we find the Tier 2 screening values (D/F and 
arsenic) for cancer and Tier 3 noncancer screening values (cadmium and 
mercury) acceptable for the Lime Manufacturing source category. This 
determination is based upon the upper-bound cancer screening values of 
20 being significantly below an excess cancer risk of 100-in-1 million 
and on results from facility-specific assessments for mercury performed 
for other source categories. Based upon this experience, we conclude 
that if we were to conduct a site-specific risk assessment for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category, the risk would result in a HQ value of 1 
or lower. For this reason and considering the conservative nature of 
the multipathway exposure screening scenario, no further analysis was 
performed. In our ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated 
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the 
source category. We considered this information along with all of the 
health risks and other health information considered in our 
determination of risk acceptability. As part of the proposed ample 
margin of safety analysis, we considered activated carbon injection 
(ACI) systems, which have not been used or demonstrated on lime kilns, 
for controlling D/F and mercury emissions. In both cases, considering 
the potential negligible reductions in emissions and the results of our 
risk analysis, we concluded that the use of ACI would have little 
effect on the source category risks. Due to the already low risk, along 
with the substantial costs associated with more stringent standards, we 
determined that additional emissions controls for this source category 
were not required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect 
public health. We have retained this determination in the final rule. 
We note that the commenter did not provide detail or supporting 
documentation for their comment.
    Comment: A commenter urged the EPA to set stronger standards to 
bring further protection to communities from lime manufacturing 
facilities. The commenter requested that the EPA consider the people 
exposed to these facilities' emissions and affected by its proposed 
decision not to strengthen the emission limits. The commenter urged the 
EPA to exercise its legal authority to end unacceptable risk for 
exposed communities and set the ``ample margin of safety to protect 
public health'' and prevent an adverse environmental effect, instead of 
attempting to avoid the science and the health threats shown in the 
record.
    Response: The risk assessment demonstrated that health risks due to 
air emissions from lime manufacturing sources are acceptable and after 
considering available control options

[[Page 44967]]

and all available risk information, the EPA concluded that the current 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
These conclusions support the EPA's decision to not revise the existing 
emission limits. However, we have amended the final rule to make 
corrections to certain provisions and have amended provisions to 
clarify their intent and these revisions will result in improved 
monitoring and compliance with and implementation of the rule. In 
addition, the elimination of the SSM exemption may result in lower HAP 
emissions.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA underestimated the health 
threats to children and from early-life exposure by ignoring increased 
risk in childhood and from prenatal exposure.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the risk 
assessment for this source category does not consider the groups that 
may be most at-risk (e.g., children). When the EPA derives exposure 
reference concentrations and unit risk estimates for metal HAP, it also 
considers the most sensitive populations identified in the available 
literature and, importantly, these are the values used in our risk 
assessments.
    We acknowledge that population subgroups, including children, may 
have a potential for risk that is greater than the general population 
due to greater relative exposure and/or greater susceptibility to the 
toxicant. The assessments we undertake to estimate risk account for 
this potential vulnerability, for example; the EPA includes exposure 
from D/F through ingestion of breast-milk for infants less than 1 year 
of age. The EPA also estimates age-specific risks to account for the 
higher sensitivity of developing children to mutagens. With respect to 
inhalation exposure, the risk assessments we perform implicitly account 
for this greater potential for exposure by assuming lifetime exposure, 
in which populations are conservatively presumed to be exposed to 
airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 hours per 
day for a full lifetime, including childhood. With regard to children's 
potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the 
assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard identification and 
dose-response values that have been developed to be protective for all 
subgroups of the general population, including children.
    For example, a review of the chronic reference value process 
concluded that the EPA's reference concentration (RfC) derivation 
processes adequately considered potential susceptibility of different 
subgroups with specific consideration of children, such that the 
resultant RfC values pertain to the full human population, ``including 
sensitive subgroups,'' a phrase which is inclusive of childhood.\3\ 
With respect to cancer, the EPA uses the age-dependent adjustment 
factor approach referred to by the commenter but limits the use of 
those factors only to carcinogenic pollutants that are known to act via 
mutagenic mode of action (MOA), in contrast to the California Office of 
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment approach, which uses them across 
the board for all carcinogens regardless of MOA. In lieu of chemical-
specific data on which age or life-stage specific risk estimates or 
potencies can be determined, default age dependent adjustment factors 
can be applied when assessing cancer risk for early-life exposures to 
chemicals that cause cancer through a mutagenic MOA. With regard to 
other carcinogenic pollutants for which early-life susceptibility data 
are lacking, it is the EPA's long-standing science policy position that 
use of the linear low-dose extrapolation approach (without further 
adjustment) provides adequate public health conservatism in the absence 
of chemical-specific data indicating differential early-life 
susceptibility or when the mode of action is not mutagenicity. The 
basis for this methodology is provided in the 2005 Supplemental 
Guidance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ USEPA, 1994. Methods for derivation of inhalation reference 
concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. EPA/600/8-
90/066F; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/rfc_methodology.pdf.
    \4\ USEPA, 2005b. Supplemental guidance for assessing early-life 
exposure to carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03003F. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated risks must be considered in the context of the full 
set of assumptions used for this risk assessment. Our unit risk 
estimates for HAP are considered a plausible upper-bound estimate with 
an appropriate age dependent adjustment; actual potency is likely to be 
lower and could be as low as zero. Our chronic noncancer reference 
values have been derived considering the potential susceptibility of 
different subgroups, with specific consideration of children.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA underestimated health 
threats to communities exposed to multiple sources by neglecting to add 
factors to account for the increased risks caused by such exposure. The 
commenter stated that the EPA underestimated the cancer, chronic 
noncancer, and acute health risks by using modeling assumptions that 
ignore real-world exposures, underestimating risk from chemicals such 
as benzene and lead due to the EPA's refusal to follow the best 
available science, and neglecting to aggregate cumulative risks.
    Response: The EPA's chronic risk assessment modeling accounts for 
cumulative cancer risks from emitted carcinogens and for pollutants 
that have similar modes of action or (where this information is absent) 
that affect the same target organ, we aggregated the HQs. This process 
creates, for each target organ, a TOSHI, defined as the sum of HQs for 
individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system.
    The modeling conducted also includes the effects of multiple 
facilities that may be in close proximity when estimating concentration 
and risk impacts at each block centroid. When evaluating the risks 
associated with a particular source category, we combined the impacts 
of all facilities within the same source category and assessed chronic 
exposure and risk for all census blocks with at least one resident 
(i.e., locations where people may reasonably be assumed to reside 
rather than receptor points at the fenceline of a facility). The MIR 
considers the combined impacts of all sources in the category that may 
be in close proximity. This approach is similar for those facilities 
within the source category that have an associated or cumulative impact 
on neighboring lakes as it relates to assessing multi-pathway impacts 
for each of the PB-HAP. Background risks or contributions to risk from 
sources outside the source category under review could be one of the 
relevant factors considered in the ample margin of safety 
determination, along with cost and economic factors, technological 
feasibility, and other factors. Background risks and contributions to 
risk from sources outside the facilities under review were not 
considered in the ample margin of safety determination for this source 
category, mainly because of the significant uncertainties associated 
with emissions estimates for such sources. Our approach here is 
consistent with the approach we took regarding this issue in the 
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006), 
which the Court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA had not 
adequately considered background (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 
2008)).
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has ignored all 
multipathway cancer and noncancer chronic health risks that result when 
persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants emitted by lime manufacturing 
facilities fall into the Great Lakes, bays, rivers, and other large 
waterbodies. The commenter

[[Page 44968]]

stated that by excluding all impacts from deposition in these 
waterbodies, the EPA ignored both health threats and ecological 
threats, and violated its legal obligation to assess health and 
environmental risk and reduce these hazards as the statute directs.
    Response: Very large lakes and bays (i.e., those larger than 
100,000 acres) are not considered because their large volumes 
significantly dilute air deposition from point sources. Such large 
lakes, including the Great Lakes, the Great Salt Lake, Lake Okeechobee, 
Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Champlain, Green Bay, and Galveston Bay also 
dilute contaminants in the vast biomass of fish in the large aquatic 
food webs. Contaminants derived from emissions to air by a point source 
would be distributed among populations of millions of fish resulting in 
negligible increases in fish tissue concentrations attributable to the 
point source. Also, very large lakes are rare (only 35 such lakes exist 
in the conterminous United States). Moreover, for facilities near large 
lakes, there usually are other, smaller lakes that the EPA does 
consider for which contaminant dilution would be lower, and, therefore, 
for which human health and ecological risks would be higher. Thus, the 
EPA does model exposure via fish consumption for populations that are 
near large lakes in a manner that generally will be more health 
protective than modeling the very large lake. The EPA also does not 
model lakes adjacent or connected to a river or saltwater body 
(estuaries and rivers) or bays; these waterbodies are likely to have 
high outflow with limited chemical retention. Less retention time for 
these types of waterbodies result in significantly lower media 
concentrations when compared to lakes.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and 
determined that no changes to the review are needed. In the proposed 
rule, we proposed that the risks from the Lime Manufacturing source 
category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin 
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are 
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For the 
reasons explained in the proposal and in our responses to public 
comments and pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our 
risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that would necessitate 
revision to the existing emission standards for the Lime Manufacturing 
source category. No cost-effective developments in practices, 
processes, or control technologies were identified in our technology 
review to necessitate revisions to the PM or opacity standards, which 
are both used as a surrogate for HAP metals, standards. More 
information concerning our technology review is in the memorandum 
titled Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category, 
which is in the docket for this action, and in the preamble to the 
proposed rule (84 FR 48726).
2. How did the technology review change for the Lime Manufacturing 
source category?
    The technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of the proposed determination 
from the technology review that no revisions were necessary under CAA 
section 112(d)(6). We also received comments asserting that the 
technology review was inadequate for a variety of reasons, primarily 
because of failure to consider control technologies for unregulated HAP 
emissions.
    Comment: A commenter stated the EPA does not discuss or perform any 
review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for all emitted HAP. The commenter 
noted that the EPA failed to complete a technology review for HCl, 
mercury, D/F, and organic HAP. The commenter stated that the EPA cannot 
determine whether developments in pollution control make it 
``necessary'' to revise the emission standards without determining what 
developments have occurred for these HAP. The commenter stated that the 
fact that these HAP are emitted from the source category requires the 
EPA to evaluate them pursuant the technology review.
    Response: Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to ``review 
and revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards 
promulgated under this section . . . .'' The EPA reads CAA section 
112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the Agency to review the 
original emission standards already promulgated and to revise those 
standards as necessary, taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies. Under this reading, section 
112(d)(6) of the CAA does not impose upon the Agency any obligation to 
promulgate new emission standards or expand the scope of an existing 
regulation.\5\ Accordingly, we disagree with the commenter that CAA 
section 112(d)(6) requires a technology review for HCl, mercury, D/F, 
and organic HAP. The EPA notes that we have completed our statutory 
requirements under CAA section 112(d)(6) in reference to the 
promulgated standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final 
rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d. 
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an 
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of 
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of 
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA 
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any new MACT standards would not be established pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6), but instead would be established under CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) or CAA section 112(h). Establishing emissions 
standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(h) involves a 
different analytical approach than reviewing emissions standards under 
CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Comment: One commenter stated that there are multiple HAP emitted 
from the Lime Manufacturing source category that have no numeric 
emission standards, including HCl, organic HAP (e.g., formaldehyde, 
styrene), mercury, and D/F. The commenter stated that CAA section 
112(d) requires limits for each HAP that a source category emits and 
that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise its 
existing emission standards ``as necessary.'' The commenter stated that 
when the EPA reviewed the Lime Manufacturing source category and found 
that they lack emission limits for emitted HAP, it is necessary under 
CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the standard (i.e., set limits for 
these HAP). The commenter noted that the EPA's failure to set emission 
limits for these HAP causes public suffering from uncontrolled exposure 
to these HAP.
    The commenter cited prior court rulings that found that the Agency 
has a ``clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each 
listed HAP.'' [National Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d

[[Page 44969]]

625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 
(D.C. Cir. 2007)] The commenter cited prior rulemakings where the EPA 
has acknowledged this issue and has subsequently set emission limits 
for pollutants without standards.
    The commenter noted that the Lime Manufacturing Plants RTR clearly 
demonstrates that these pollutants are emitted from the source 
category, but that the EPA has not acknowledged its obligation to set 
limits on these uncontrolled HAP and has not explained why it is not 
``necessary'' to revise the existing standards to set limits for these 
HAP. The commenter stated that the EPA has emissions data from at least 
some sources, and it must complete its obligation to set a limit for 
these HAP.
    The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA 
not to set limits for these HAP in this rulemaking. The commenter 
stated that if the EPA does not do this, it will fail to complete the 
review and revision rulemaking as CAA section 112(d)(6) requires, will 
violate the Court's order in California Communities Against Toxics v. 
Pruitt, 241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.C. 2017), and will also issue a final 
rule that is unlawful and inadequate.
    Response: CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and 
revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated 
under this section. We do not read section CAA section 112(d)(6) as 
supporting the commenter's assertion that the EPA must establish new 
standards for unregulated emission points or pollutants as part of a 
technology review of the existing standards (but see footnote 5). The 
EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the 
Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards 
already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as 
necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies. The EPA does not read CAA section 112(d)(6) as 
directing the Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the mandatory 
8-year technology review, to develop new emission standards to address 
HAP or emission points for which standards were not previously 
promulgated.
    When the EPA established standards for previously unregulated 
emissions, we did not establish those initial standards pursuant to CAA 
section 112(d)(6) but instead established the standards under one of 
the provisions that govern initial standard setting--CAA sections 
112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA sections 
112(d)(4) or 112(h). Establishing emissions standards under these 
provisions of the CAA involves a different analytical approach from 
reviewing emissions standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology 
review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the 
reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-
effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies 
were identified in our technology review to necessitate revisions to 
the standards. More information concerning our technology review can be 
found in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category, which is in the docket for this action. 
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our 
technology review as proposed.

C. SSM for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP 
to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent 
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times or that are 
unnecessary or redundant in the absence of an SSM exemption. More 
information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change from proposal for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions with the following changes 
from the proposal:
     Replacing the proposed startup work practice standards for 
kilns and coolers equipped with a FF or ESP with opacity emission 
standards.
     Replacing the proposed startup work practice standards for 
kilns and coolers equipped with a wet scrubber with a requirement to 
meet standards applicable during normal operation.
     Revising the definition of ``Startup'' to add ``on-
specification'' prior to ``lime product'' and to add an alternate 
ending to startup.
     Adding testing requirements for determining when lime 
product is deemed on-specification.
    With respect to the revisions to the proposed startup standards, 
the EPA is finalizing standards for startup that differ from what we 
proposed based on a re-evaluation of the need for work practice 
standards. The EPA proposed work practice standards for kilns equipped 
with wet scrubbers, FFs, and ESPs. However, the final rule requires 
kilns and coolers that are equipped with ESPs or FFs to meet numerical 
opacity limits and kilns and coolers equipped with wet scrubbers to 
meet the scrubbing liquid flow rate requirements that apply during 
normal operations. The EPA's determination in the proposed rule (84 FR 
48727) that work practice standards were appropriate was based on a 
finding that the application of measurement methodology for PM 
emissions was impracticable because the test methods required for 
compliance are to be conducted under steady-state conditions which are 
difficult to achieve during startup. In addition to the reference test 
method (EPA Method 5), we considered PM emission monitors, which also 
requires steady-state conditions. However, based on comments claiming 
that the EPA has not shown a lack of practicable measurement 
methodology for startup periods, we reconsidered the issue. The 2004 
final NESHAP rule established opacity as an emission standard limiting 
PM emissions. We are not aware of factors that would prevent the 
monitoring of opacity during startup periods.
    For kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA 
allows compliance with opacity standards to ensure PM is controlled 
between stack tests.\6\ In this rule, for periods of startup, the EPA 
is requiring kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs to meet the 15-percent 
opacity limit that applies during normal operation averaged over the 
period of startup. The EPA has determined that a longer averaging time 
is appropriate for startup periods since we are aware that emissions 
during startup can be variable in light of the sequence of events that

[[Page 44970]]

occur during startup of a kiln. Thus, the longer averaging time being 
finalized is to account for this variability that could result in 
spikes in opacity during the startup period. During startup, even the 
best performing units are constantly making adjustments in terms of 
fuel flow and combustion air flow rate. Every increase in fuel rate or 
feed rate requires the source to adjust air flow to the proper level. 
Each adjustment can lead to a spike in opacity. Accounting for such 
variability in setting emission standards is consistent with the CAA 
case law. See, United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 632 
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (``We have held, see Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. 
EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and recently reaffirmed, see 
NACWA, 734 F.3d at 1133-34, that the EPA can consider this variability 
when setting MACT floors.''). As proposed, the EPA is not establishing 
different shutdown standards for kilns equipped wth FFs or wet 
scrubbers and, thus, such kilns must meet otherwise applicable limits 
during shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA notes that under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA stack 
testing is not permitted during startup and shutdown. As proposed, 
this rule replaces the reference in Table 9 to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) 
(which prohibits performance testing during periods of startup and 
shutdown) with identical language at 40 CFR 63.7112(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are 
our responses?
    The EPA received 16 comments related to our proposed revisions to 
the SSM provisions. Commenters generally supported the proposed removal 
of the SSM exemptions but disagreed with either the proposing of work 
practice standards for the startup period or certain aspects of the 
proposed work practice standards. We evaluated the comments and 
determined that changes to the proposed SSM provisions are warranted. A 
summary of these comments and our responses are located in the 
memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Lime 
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review, which is in 
the docket for this action.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA's work practice standard 
requiring all kilns to start and operate on ``clean fuels'' until the 
kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit is unnecessary, 
not based on information in the administrative record, inconsistent 
with processes required to safely and properly commence kiln operation, 
and, for some kilns, is impractical based on the realities of operating 
kilns in the lime industry.
    The commenters stated that for operational and safety reasons, 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) cannot be started immediately to 
effectively remove PM upon startup of the kiln. Therefore, the clean 
fuel work practice for startup makes sense for ESP-equipped kilns. The 
commenters confirmed that the limited number of ESP-equipped kilns in 
the lime industry can be started on natural gas or other listed clean 
fuels.
    The commenters stated that for baghouse and scrubber-equipped 
kilns, clean fuel startup is not needed because the air pollution 
control device is operating at the beginning of startup and begins 
removing PM immediately. The commenters stated that since stone feed 
rates are low during startup, total PM emissions exiting the kiln will 
be less than during normal operation, and the operating air pollution 
control devices will ensure that PM will be removed. The commenters 
also noted that clean fuels are not available at all lime manufacturing 
locations (for example, natural gas is not readily available in areas 
far from gas pipelines).
    The commenters stated that the proposed requirement to meet the 
opacity and scrubber liquid flow rate operating limits is sufficient to 
show that emissions are not excessive for baghouse and scrubber-
equipped kilns. The commenters recommended that the EPA delete the 
requirement for baghouse and scrubber-equipped kilns to start on clean 
fuels but add a requirement that the air pollution control devices for 
such kilns be in operation at the beginning of startup.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the requirement to start and operate 
on ``clean fuels'' is unnecessary for kilns equipped with FFs or wet 
scrubbers because the control devices can be operational at the time of 
startup. Therefore, we are not finalizing the work practice requirement 
to startup on clean fuel for kilns equipped for FFs or wet scrubbers. 
As explained above in section C.2, we are instead requiring kilns 
equipped with FFs, ESPs or wet scrubbers to comply with standards as 
described in section C.2 above and in Table 2 during startup and 
shutdown.
    Comment: The proposed definition of the end of startup was 
``Startup ends 60 minutes after the lime kiln generates lime product.'' 
Commenters stated that the term ``lime product'' is not specific enough 
to provide certainty to regulated sources. The commenters highlighted 
that a kiln will start to discharge off-spec product almost 
simultaneously with the lighting of the primary fuel. The commenters 
stated that it can take up to 12 hours to produce quality grade lime 
following first discharge from a rotary kiln, and even longer for a 
vertical kiln.
    The commenters recommended that the end of startup should be 
related to levels of stone feed, because the applicable PM emissions 
limits are based on tons of stone feed. The commenters recommended that 
the definition of the end of startup should be revised to read 
``Startup ends 60 minutes after stone feed reaches planned production 
quantities.''
    Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters feedback regarding the 
definition of the end of startup. Commenters provided further 
information (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0015, SSM Letter 
from Industry (1/31/2019)) regarding what constitutes on-specification 
lime product and the time when on-specification lime product is 
produced. Commenters note that on-specification lime is produced when 
steady-state conditions are achieved. The EPA determined that the 
definition of the end of startup is the time when steady-state 
conditions are achieved such that PM testing could be conducted with 
the reference test method. We have determined that these steady-state 
conditions are achieved either when first producing on-specification 
lime product or 12 hours following first discharge from the kiln, 
whichever is earlier.
    We are finalizing the definition of the end of startup to provide 
more clarity, as follows: ``Startup ends when the lime kiln generates 
on-specification lime product or 12 hours following first discharge 
from the lime kiln, whichever is earlier.'' We are also finalizing a 
new definition for on-specification lime product, as follows: ``On-
specification lime product means lime product that has been 
sufficiently calcined to meet end use requirements.''
    Finally, we are finalizing a requirement for facilities to test 
hourly during startup to determine when lime product meets the 
definition of on-specification, to maintain records of the time the 
kiln first began producing on-specification lime product, and the time 
of first discharge from the lime kiln.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the best way to address malfunction 
events would be for plants to develop site-specific protocols for 
malfunctions that would be embodied in a rule required plan, and that 
compliance with those protocols would constitute compliance with an 
applicable work practice standard. The commenters suggested retaining 
the requirement for a SSM plan that would contain these protocols, or 
requiring them in the plant's operations, maintenance, and monitoring 
(OM&M) plan.
    The commenters stated that this would allow work practices for 
malfunctions to be tailored to the specific equipment and operating 
conditions present at each plant, and

[[Page 44971]]

the presence of the protocols in a required plan would allow for the 
EPA review and enforcement. The commenters stated that the EPA's 
consideration of work practice standards for specified malfunctions (84 
FR 48728) would be better than not setting separate standards at all, 
but that this approach would omit some malfunctions, and will not have 
the same degree of ``fit'' as tailored OM&M protocols would have.
    The commenters stated that adopting work practice standards for 
specified malfunctions (as opposed to tailored OM&M protocols) could 
also cause confusion as to what malfunctions are covered by the 
regulation. The commenters summarized the definition of malfunction in 
40 CFR 63.2. The commenters noted that not all operational malfunctions 
of kilns and their associated air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment constitute ``malfunctions'' under the definition in section 
63.2, because some problems do not have the potential to cause 
emissions limitations to be exceeded.
    The commenters stated that local engineering expertise may be 
required to determine whether particular operational malfunctions are 
``malfunctions'' under the statute and rule and that this is a reason 
why tailored procedures in OM&M plans would be preferable to work 
practice standards for specified malfunctions.
    Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter that 
malfunctions should be addressed through source-specific enforceable 
``plans'' that would contain these protocols for malfunctions. 
Establishing source-specific protocols for malfunctions that met MACT 
stringency requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, given 
the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur. See, U.S. 
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 608 (2016)(``Any possible standard is 
likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of 
circumstances.'')
    The EPA is also not finalizing specific work practice standards for 
specific malfunction events, although we may do so if available 
information supports separate MACT-compliant standards in the future. 
In this case, we received comment and information on potential work 
practice standards during periods of malfunction, however we do not 
have information to support that the suggested standards met the MACT 
stringency requirements. The EPA also agrees that finalizing specific 
work practice standards for malfunctions has the potential to omit 
certain malfunction events and cause confusion regarding what 
malfunctions are covered by the regulation, as it would be difficult to 
capture all malfunction events.
    Comment: A commenter stated support for the EPA's proposed removal 
of the existing exemption of emissions during SSM periods. The 
commenter stated that the CAA requires that standards are continuous 
and applicable at all times and referenced various court rulings 
upholding this determination.
    The commenter stated that the EPA may not finalize the new SSM 
exemptions it has proposed. The commenter stated that the EPA has not 
cited and can cite no statutory language granting it authority or 
``discretion'' to set such standards, because it has none. The 
commenter stated that the EPA has only the discretion provided by the 
Act and delegated by Congress. [Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d 
1, 9 (DC Cir. 2017)] The commenter stated that relevant statutory 
language denies, rather than gives, the EPA authority to set 
malfunction-based standards or exemptions. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d), (h), 
and 7602(k).
    Response: The EPA disagrees that it has proposed new SSM exemptions 
or that the EPA does not have authority to establish different 
standards for periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. In fact, the 
EPA proposed to (1) eliminate the SSM exemption, (2) require compliance 
with the existing standard for periods of malfunction and (3) require 
compliance with standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The 
commenter does not explain and cannot support the general claim that 
the statutory language denies the EPA authority to set different 
standards for startup or shutdown. The 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. 
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008) (``2008 Sierra Club decision''), held 
that emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature 
and that ``some'' section 112 standards apply continuously. The DC 
Circuit reiterated this principle in Sierra Club v EPA, 884 F. 3d. 
1185, 1203 (DC Cir. 2018) (``2018 Sierra Club decision'') explaining 
that the 2014 Sierra Club decision ``held that, whenever HAP sources 
are in operation, including during startup and shutdown, the EPA must 
continuously subject them to either numeric limits or Section 112(h)-
compliant work practice standards.'' Consistent with the 2008 Sierra 
Club decision, and taking into account startup and shutdown periods, 
the EPA proposed work practice standards for these periods based on a 
determination under CAA section 112(h) that for kilns and coolers it 
was not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numeric standard during 
these periods of startup and shutdown. See 84 FR 48727. As discussed in 
the preamble to the final rule, based on public comments, we have made 
changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup and 
shutdown.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA does not have statutory 
authority to create work practice requirements for startups. The 
commenter summarized the requirements and applicable definitions of CAA 
sections 7412(h)(1) and (h)(2) and stated that the EPA has not 
satisfied either of the statute's definitions of ``not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce and emission standard.'' The commenter stated that 
promulgating work practice requirements instead of numeric emission 
limitations for periods of startup would violate the statute. The 
commenter stated that CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) covers situations where 
``the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of 
sources is not practicable due to technological and economic 
limitations.'' The commenter stated that startup and shutdown are 
``events,'' not a ``particular class of source.'' The commenter stated 
that section 112(h)(2)(B) cannot be used as justification for work 
practice standards in lieu of numeric emission limits.
    Response: As discussed above, based on public comments, we have 
made changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup 
and shutdown. The EPA's final rule does not establish work practice 
standards for period of startup and shutdown, so the comment is no 
longer relevant. However, the EPA notes that it does not agree with the 
commenter that section 112(h)(2)(B) can be invoked to justify a work 
practice standard only for categories or subcategories of sources under 
section 112(h)(2)(B), not for periods of operation. Section 112(h) 
provides that the EPA may ``promulgate a design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof'' in lieu of 
a numeric emission standard if the Administrator determines that it is 
not feasible, in his/her judgment, to prescribe or enforce a numeric 
standard. More specifically, section 112(h)(2) states it is infeasible 
to prescribe or enforce an emission standard if the application of 
measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not 
practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Nothing in 
this section limits the Agency's discretion to establish work practice 
standards to particular sources, subcategories of sources, or source 
categories, or to certain periods of operations if, in the

[[Page 44972]]

Administrator's judgment, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
numeric emission standard during those periods. The reference to ``a 
particular class of sources'' in section 112(h)(2) does not limit the 
EPA's authority to determine, for a category or subcategory of sources, 
that it is infeasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for 
those sources during certain identifiable time periods, such as startup 
and shutdown.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has proposed to excuse 
sources from using their ESPs during startup. The commenter stated that 
the EPA argues that industry stakeholders have claimed it may be unsafe 
to run ESPs during these times. The commenter stated that CAA section 
112(h)(2)(B) does not authorize the EPA to set work practice 
requirements based on the Agency's views about the safety implications 
of running a particular control device.
    The commenter stated that nothing in the CAA or existing rule 
requires lime kilns to control their PM emissions with ESPs. The 
commenter stated that if lime kiln owners and operators believe it is 
unsafe to run ESPs during startup and shutdown, the appropriate 
solution is for them to deploy other control devices (e.g., FFs), not 
to excuse them from meeting numeric emission limits during these 
events.
    Response: As discussed above, based on public comments, we have 
made changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup 
and shutdown. The EPA's final rule does not establish work practice 
standards for period of startup and shutdown so the comment is no 
longer relevant.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the 
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we 
determined that it is appropriate to remove and revise provisions 
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the 
standards apply at all times or that are unnecessary or redundant in 
the absence of an SSM exemption. Therefore, we are finalizing our 
approach for the SSM provisions as proposed with changes as detailed in 
section IV.C.2 of this preamble. More information concerning the 
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is discussed above and in the 
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 48727-48730, September 16, 2019).

D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What did we proposed for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed that owners or operators of lime manufacturing 
plants submit electronic copies of required performance test reports, 
performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports 
through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. More information concerning our 
proposal on electronic reporting requirements can be found in the 
proposed rule (84 FR 48708).
2. How did the electronic reporting provisions change for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category?
    Since proposal, the electronic reporting provisions have not 
changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting 
provisions, and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments related to the proposed electronic 
reporting provisions. The commenters generally supported the proposed 
provisions but disagreed with certain aspects of the provisions.
    Comment: Commenters provided feedback on the electronic semiannual 
compliance report (spreadsheet template), per the EPA's request (84 FR 
48730). The commenters noted the following:
     In tab ``CMS Deviation Summary,'' column D (Total Source 
Operating Time (hours)), and column F (Total Duration of CMS Downtime 
as a percentage of Total Emissions Unit Operating Time) are both 
protected so it is not possible for an operator to input this data. 
This should be corrected.
     The example source operating time is shown as 6,240 hours. 
For semi-annual reporting, the maximum possible hours are 4,380.

The commenters stated that the EPA should compare the final template 
reporting form to the final rule to ensure each reporting element is 
required in the rule and that the template reporting form instructions 
are accurate and detailed enough to ensure consistent reporting across 
the industry.
    Response: The EPA will check the final reporting template to be 
sure each reporting requirement marked as a required element is 
required by the final rule and will also provide adequate instructions 
for filling out the reporting template. The EPA will also check to be 
sure columns D (operating time) and F are unprotected in order that 
manual inputs can be entered by the user. The example operating time 
for semi-annual reporting will be updated to 4,380 hours.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA may not create an 
unlawful exemption or extension for compliance reporting as it proposes 
to do for web outages or so-called ``force majeure events,'' as this 
violates the requirement for standards to be continuous and would allow 
unreported exceedances to go unchecked, indefinitely.
    Response: The commenter asserts that the brief case-by-case 
extension of report submittal deadlines is an unlawful exemption from 
compliance with the emissions standards. This is not the case. The EPA 
notes that there is no exemption to reporting, much less an exemption 
from compliance with the emission standards, only a method for 
requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are 
required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. While 
no new fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation does require that 
the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the 
CEDRI outage is resolved or after the force majeure event occurs. The 
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy 
until electronic reporting can be resumed.
    The Administrator has full discretion to accept or reject the claim 
of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an extension is not 
automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by the Administrator. 
If the Administrator determines that a facility has not acted in good 
faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the Administrator can 
reject the claim and find that the failure to report timely is a 
deviation from the regulation.
    The EPA also disagrees that the ability to request a reporting 
extension violates the requirement for emissions standards to be 
continuous. While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and 
air agencies to assess whether owners or operators are in compliance 
with emissions standards, reporting obligations are separate from 
(i.e., in addition to) requirements that an owner or operator be in 
compliance with an emissions standard. The EPA has discretion to 
establish reporting schedules, and also discretion to allow a mechanism 
for extension of those schedules on a case-by-case basis.
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the 
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.

[[Page 44973]]

4. What is the rational for our final approach for the electronic 
reporting provisions?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed 
amendments to the electronic reporting provisions. For the reasons 
explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 48708), we have determined the 
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final rulemaking 
will:
     Increase the usefulness of the data contained in those 
reports;
     be consistent with current trends in data availability and 
transparency;
     further assist in the protection of public health and the 
environment;
     improve compliance by facilitating the ability of 
regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements;
     facilitate the ability of delegated state, local, tribal, 
and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine 
compliance; and
     ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities, 
delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
    Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, 
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating 
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data 
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the 
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with 
the EPA's plan \7\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping 
with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \8\ developed in response to the 
White House's Digital Government Strategy.\9\ For more information on 
the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled 
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards 
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews, 
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/documentD=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \8\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September 
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \9\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to 
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. IBR

    In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA will 
incorporate by reference the following documents described in the 
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses 
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR 
approved for table 5 to subpart AAAAA. This method is approved as an 
alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A to part 60.
     ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for 40 CFR 
63.7142(a) and 63.7142(b). This method is approved as an alternative to 
EPA Method 320 of appendix A to part 63.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for 40 CFR 63.7142(a) and 40 CFR 63.7142(b). This method is approved as 
an alternative to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to part 63.
     ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7142(a). 
This method is approved as an alternative to EPA Method 321 of appendix 
A to part 63.
     ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR 
approved for 40 CFR 63.7142(b). This method is approved as an 
alternative to EPA Method 18 of appendix A to part 60.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7113(d). This method was added in 
accordance with final revisions to the bag leak detection requirements 
under 40 CFR 63.7113(d).
    The ANSI/ASME document is available from the American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Two Park 
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at (800) 843-2763. The 
ASTM documents are available from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org; by mail at l00 Barr Harbor 
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or by telephone 
at (610) 832-9500. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, the EPA 
document generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ and at the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES 
section of this preamble for more information).

F. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Lime Manufacturing Source 
Category

1. What did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed the following technical and editorial changes:
     Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.7113 to 
the provision that triboelectric bag leak detection system must be 
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-
98-015. Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance;
     revising 40 CFR 63.7142 to add an alternative test method 
to EPA Method 320;
     revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM 
Method D6735-01;
     revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM 
Method D6420-99; and
     revising Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, to add 
alternative compliance option.
2. How did the technical and editorial changes change for the Lime 
Manufacturing source category?
    Since proposal, the technical and editorial changes have not 
changed.
3. What key comments did we received on the technical and editorial 
changes, and what are our responses?
    No comments were received on the technical and editorial changes 
detailed above.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical and 
editorial changes?
    Because no comments were received on the technical and editorial 
changes that the EPA proposed, we determined that these changes should 
be finalized as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently 35 lime manufacturing facilities operating in 
the United States that are subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants 
NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA,

[[Page 44974]]

affected source is the lime kiln and its associated cooler, and the PSH 
operation system located at a major source of HAP emissions. A new or 
reconstructed affected source is a source that commenced construction 
after December 20, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and 
commenced reconstruction after December 20, 2002.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are 
estimated to be approximately 2,320 tpy. This represents a reduction in 
HAP emissions of about 240 tpy due to the current (2004) Lime 
Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The final amendments will require all 
affected sources subject to the emission standards in the Lime 
Manufacturing Plants NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We 
were unable to quantify the specific emissions reduction associated 
with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM 
exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet 
emissions standards during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would 
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the 
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of 
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the 
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other 
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA 
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this 
rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 35 lime manufacturing plants that would be subject to the final 
amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements and the standards for periods of startup and 
shutdown. Nationwide costs associated with the final requirements are 
estimated to be $15,271. The EPA believes that the lime manufacturing 
plants which are subject to the NESHAP can meet the final requirements 
with minimal additional capital or operational costs. Each facility 
will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs 
associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as 
part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-
evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated 
with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-
annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the 
reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming 
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual 
compliance reports.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and 
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the 
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may 
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a 
final rule and the distribution of these costs among affected 
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in 
response to a final rule. The total costs associated with reviewing the 
final rule, meeting the revised recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and complying with the revised final standards are 
estimated to be $15,271. This is an estimated cost of $266 to $2,925 
per facility, depending on the number of lime kilns operated and the 
type of controls installed. These costs are not expected to result in a 
significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to 
the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. Based on the costs associated 
with the elimination of the SSM exemption and the costs associated with 
the requirement to electronically submit compliance reports, we do not 
anticipate any significant economic impacts from these final 
amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA is unable to quantify reductions in HAP emissions 
as a result of the final amendments, we believe that the action 
improves the rule. Specifically, the final amendments remove SSM 
exemptions such that standards apply at all times. Additionally, the 
final amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial 
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance 
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will 
increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends 
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public 
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden 
on the regulated community.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in the Risk and 
Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Lime Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is 
available in the docket for this action. The results of the Lime 
Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicated that 
emissions from the source category expose approximately 12 people to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk 
population indicate that three of the 10 demographic groups (White, 
African American and people below the poverty level) that are living 
within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceed the 
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.

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

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support 
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

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

    This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action 
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared

[[Page 44975]]

has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.09. You can find a copy of the 
ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    We are finalizing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP in the form of 
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring 
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance 
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the 
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime 
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or 
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime 
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill, 
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes 
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart AAAAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years, 
approximately 36 existing major sources will be subject to these 
standards. It is also estimated that one additional respondent will 
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending 
on the burden item.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over 
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is 
estimated to be 9,690 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost 
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP 
is estimated to be $1,810,000 (per year), of which $15,271 (first year) 
is for this rule, and the rest is for other costs related to continued 
compliance with the NESHAP including $684,000 in annualized capital and 
operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. This action only eliminates 
the SSM exemption, revises other SSM related requirements, and adds 
electronic reporting. None of the changes will impact the small 
entities. The rule removes the SSM exemption and establishes emission 
standard for startup and shutdown. Based on the controls used at the 
small entities, they will not be impacted by the alternate emission 
standards. Thus, this action will not impose any requirements on small 
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the 
private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 48708, September 
16, 2019) and further documented in the risk report titled Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support 
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is 
available in the docket for this action.

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

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

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

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to 
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual 
portion only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines 
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from 
stationary combustion sources. This standard may be obtained from 
https://www.asme.org or from the American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers (ASME) at Three Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016-5990.
    The EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348-03(2010) and ASTM D6348-12e1, 
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Executive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as alternatives to using EPA 
Method 320 under certain conditions and incorporate these alternatives 
by reference. ASTM D6348-03(2010) was previously determined equivalent 
to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of 
ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results 
from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still 
lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. The

[[Page 44976]]

voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 
at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to 
the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the conditions 
that must be met are defined in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(2). This field test 
method employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary 
source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and 
quantification of gaseous compounds. The ASTM D6348-03(2010) and ASTM 
D6348-12el standards were developed and adopted by the American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ATSM).
    The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), 
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and 
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' as 
an alternative to EPA Method 321 provided that the provisions in 40 CFR 
63.7142(a)(4) are followed. The EPA used ASTM D6735-01 for the 
determination of HCl in EPA Methods 26, 26A, and 321 from mineral 
calcining exhaust sources. This method will measure the gaseous HCl and 
other gaseous chlorides and fluorides that pass through a PM filter. 
The ASTM D6735-01 standard was developed and adopted by the ASTM.
    The EPA has decided to use VCS ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), 
``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' as an alternative to 
EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known, and the 
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 
should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less 
than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total volatile 
organic compound method. This field method determines the mass 
concentration of volatile organic HAP.
    The ASTM standards may be obtained from http://www.astm.org or from 
the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office C700, West Conshohocken, 
Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
    The EPA has decided to use EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance, September 1997 as guidance for how a triboelectric bag leak 
detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and 
maintained. This document includes FF and monitoring system 
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, set up, 
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures. This 
document may be obtained from http://www.epa.gov or from the EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    While the EPA has identified another 10 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS 
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to 
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import 
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled 
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Lime Manufacturing 
Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this proposed 
rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the final rule or any amendments.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of 
the proposal preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology 
Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime 
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the 
docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR 
part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(85), 
(86), (93), (100), and (n)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 
63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 
63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 3 to 
subpart YYYY, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b), 63.9307(c), 
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart 
AAAAA, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to 
subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart 
ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface 
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.1571(a), 63.4751(i), 63.4752(e), 63.4766(b), 63.7142(a) and (b), 
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK, 
tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
    (86) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved 
for

[[Page 44977]]

Sec. Sec.  63.997(e), 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE, 
table 4 to subpart UUUU, and 63.7142(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.7142(b), 
and appendix A to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
    (100) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for 
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining 
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Sec.  63.7142(b), 
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR 
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7113(d), 63.7525(j), 
63.7831(f), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

Subpart AAAAA--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.7083 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and 
(b) and by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (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, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (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, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (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, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (e)(1) If your affected source commenced construction or 
reconstruction on or before September, 16, 2019, then the compliance 
date for the revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.7090, 
63.7100, 63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7130, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 
63.7141, 63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 (except 
changes to the cross references to 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1)) of 40 CFR 63, 
subpart AAAAA, published on July 24, 2020 is January 20, 2021.
    (2) If your affected source commenced construction or 
reconstruction after September 16, 2019, then the compliance date for 
the revised requirements promulgated at Sec. Sec.  63.7090, 63.7100, 
63.7112, 63.7113, 63.7121, 63.7130, 63.7131, 63.7132, 63.7140, 63.7141, 
63.7142, and 63.7143 and Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 to this subpart, 
published on July 24, 2020 is July 24, 2020 or the date of initial 
startup, whichever is later.

0
4. Section 63.7090 is amended by revising paragraph (b) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7090   What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 3 to this subpart 
that applies to you.
    (c) On or after the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec. Sec.  63.7083(e), you must meet each startup and 
shutdown period emission limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies 
to you.

0
5. Section 63.7100 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), 
(d)(3), (d)(4)(iii), (d)(6) introductory text, and (e) to read as 
follows:


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

    (a) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the 
emission limitations (including operating limits) in this subpart at 
all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 
On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified 
in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the applicable 
emission limitations (including operating limits) at all times.
    (b) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the 
opacity and visible emission (VE) limits in this subpart at all times, 
except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and 
after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in 
Sec.  63.7083(e), you must be in compliance with the applicable opacity 
and VE limits at all times.
    (c) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), 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). On and 
after the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in 
Sec.  63.7083(e), you must always operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The general duty 
to minimize emissions does not require the owner or operator to make 
any further efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the 
applicable standard have been achieved. Determination of whether such 
operation and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on 
information available to the Administrator which may include, but is 
not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation and maintenance 
procedures, review of operation and maintenance records, and inspection 
of the source.
    (d) * * *
    (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, 2 and 
3 to this subpart, respectively. On and after the relevant compliance 
date for your source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), your OM&M plan 
must address periods of startup and shutdown.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), ongoing operation and maintenance 
procedures in accordance with the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(i) and (ii), (3), and (4)(ii). On and after the relevant 
compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), 
ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the 
general requirements of paragraph (c) of this section and Sec. Sec.  
63.8(c)(1)(ii), (3), and (4)(ii); and
* * * * *
    (6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating 
parameters or add-on control device parameters deviate from the 
operating limits

[[Page 44978]]

specified in Table 3 to this subpart, including:
* * * * *
    (e) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you must develop a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e)(3).

0
6. Section 63.7110 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) For each initial compliance requirement in Table 4 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 4 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.

0
7. Section 63.7112 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (j) 
introductory text, (k) introductory text, (k)(3), and (l) introductory 
text, and adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:


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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 5 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the 
specific conditions specified in Table 5 to this subpart. On and after 
the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  
63.7083(e), each performance test must be conducted based on 
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal operating 
conditions) of the affected source and under the specific conditions in 
Table 5 to this subpart. Representative conditions exclude periods of 
startup and shutdown. The owner or operator may not conduct performance 
tests during periods of malfunction. The owner or operator must record 
the process information that is necessary to document operating 
conditions during the test and include in such record an explanation to 
support that such conditions represent normal operation. Upon request, 
the owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such 
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance 
tests.
    (c) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you may not conduct performance tests 
during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(1). On and after the relevant compliance date for your 
source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you may not conduct 
performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
* * * * *
    (j) You must establish any applicable 3-hour block average 
operating limit indicated in Table 3 to this subpart according to the 
applicable requirements in Table 4 to this subpart and paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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 5 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs (k)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. 
However, the observer must meet the training requirements as described 
in EPA Method 22 in appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter.
    (l) When determining compliance with the opacity standards for 
fugitive emissions from PSH operations in item 8 of Table 1 to this 
subpart, you must conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of 
this chapter according to item 17 in Table 5 to this subpart, and in 
accordance with paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (m) On and after the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), during startup, kilns must be tested 
hourly to determine when lime product meets the definition of on-
specification lime product.

0
8. Section 63.7113 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to 
read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) For each bag leak detection system (BLDS), you must meet any 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1) 
through (10) 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 be equipped with a device to continuously record 
the output signal from the sensor.
    (4) The BLDS must have an alarm that will sound automatically when 
it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset 
level.
    (5) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (6) 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.
    (7) Each triboelectric BLDS must be installed, calibrated, 
operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter 
Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14). Other types of bag leak detection systems must be installed, 
operated, calibrated, and maintained according to the manufacturer's 
written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating 
procedures must be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (8) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways, 
according to section 5.0 of the EPA-454/R-98-015, ``Fabric Filter Bag 
Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14):
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (9) After initial adjustment, the sensitivity or range, averaging 
period,

[[Page 44979]]

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 such adjustment 
follows a complete FF inspection that demonstrates that the FF is in 
good operating condition, as defined in section 5.2 of the ``Fabric 
Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (incorporated by reference--see 
Sec.  63.14). Record each adjustment.
    (10) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
* * * * *
    (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 requirements in item 6 of 
Table 3 to this subpart and record the results of each inspection.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.7114 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory 
text and (b) to read as follows:


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 4 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:
* * * * *
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
3 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7112(j) and Table 5 to this subpart. Alternative parameters 
may be monitored if approval is obtained according to the procedures in 
Sec.  63.8(f).
* * * * *

0
10. Section 63.7120 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory 
text to read as follows and removing paragraph (c)(3).


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

* * * * *
    (c) Data recorded during the conditions described in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) 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.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 63.7121 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d), 
(e) introductory text, and (e)(3) to read as follows:


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 3 to this subpart that applies to you 
according to the methods specified in Tables 6 and 7 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, 3 and 7 to 
this subpart that applies to you. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7131.
* * * * *
    (d) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), 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 
Sec.  63.6(e)(1). 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 
7 to this subpart, and as follows:
* * * * *
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct EPA Method 9 in appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter but 
must meet the training requirements as described in EPA Method 22 of 
appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 63.7130 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7130   What notifications must I submit and when?

* * * * *
    (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 4 or 5 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii). Beginning on the relevant compliance date for your 
source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), submit all subsequent 
Notification of Compliance Status following the procedure specified in 
Sec.  63.7131(h).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 4 
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 6 to this 
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the 
requirements in Table 5 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).

0
13. Section 63.7131 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4), paragraphs (d), (e) introductory text, 
and (e)(2);
0
d. Adding paragraph (e)(12);
0
e. Revising paragraph (f); and
0
f. Adding paragraphs (g) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7131   What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report listed in Table 8 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 8 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section:
* * * * *
    (6) Beginning on the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), submit all subsequent compliance reports 
following the procedure specified in paragraph (h) of this section.
    (c) * * *
    (4) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in

[[Page 44980]]

Sec.  63.7083(e), if you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during 
the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, 
the compliance report must include the information in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i).
* * * * *
    (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) prior to the 
relevant compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  
63.7083(e) and the requirements in Sec.  63.10(d)(1)-(4) beginning on 
the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  
63.7083(e).
    (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), and the corrective action 
taken.
    (3) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant emitted 
over a particulate matter emission limit, and a description of the 
method used to estimate the emissions.
    (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, 
except that beginning on the relevant compliance date for your source 
as specified in 63.7083(e), the semiannual compliance report must also 
include the information included in paragraph (e)(12) of this section. 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
* * * * *
    (2) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was inoperative, 
except for zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
* * * * *
    (12) An estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over a particulate matter emission limit, and a description of 
the method used to estimate the emissions.
    (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.  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 8 to 
this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 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.
    (g) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure 
specified in this paragraph, you must submit reports to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be 
accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report template 
on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for 
this subpart. The date report templates become available will be listed 
on the CEDRI website. The report must be submitted by the deadline 
specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report 
is submitted. If you claim some of the information required to be 
submitted via CEDRI is confidential business information (CBI), submit 
a complete report, including information claimed to be CBI, to the EPA. 
The report must be generated using the appropriate form on the CEDRI 
website. Submit the file on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage medium and clearly mark the medium as 
CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, 
Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old 
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file with the CBI omitted must be 
submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this 
paragraph.
    (h) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the 
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(h)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the 
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through 
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a 
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, 
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup 
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
    (2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the 
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test. 
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment 
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated 
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
    (3) Confidential business information (CBI). If you claim some of 
the information submitted under paragraph (i) of this section is CBI, 
you must submit a complete file, including information claimed to be 
CBI, to the EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the 
EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the file on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium and 
clearly mark the medium as CBI. Mail the electronic medium to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (i) If you are required to electronically submit a report or 
notification through CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of 
EPA system outage for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (i)(1) through (7) of this section.
    (1) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (2) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning five business days prior to the date that the submission is 
due.
    (3) The outage may be planned or unplanned.

[[Page 44981]]

    (4) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (5) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (i) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to EPA system outage;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (6) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and allow 
an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion 
of the Administrator.
    (7) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (j) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of force majeure for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of force majeure, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning five business days prior 
to the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (2) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing as 
soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or has caused a 
delay in reporting.
    (3) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (i) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (ii) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (iii) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (iv) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have 
already met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, 
the date you reported.
    (4) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (5) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.

0
14. Section 63.7132 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  63.7132   What records must I keep?

    (a) * * *
    (2) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), the records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) 
through (v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. On and after 
the relevant compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  
63.7083(e), the records in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (i) You must keep records for each startup period of the date, the 
time startup began, the time began producing on-specification lime 
product, and the time discharge from the kiln began for any affected 
source that is subject to a standard during startup that differs from 
the standard applicable at other times.
    (ii) You must keep records of the date, time, cause and duration of 
each malfunction (as defined in 40 CFR 63.2) that causes an affected 
source to fail to meet an applicable standard; if there was also a 
monitoring malfunction, the date, time, cause, and duration of the 
monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affected source or 
equipment; if there was a failure to meet a particulate matter 
emissions limit, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant 
emitted over the limit, and a description of the method used to 
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
    (c) You must keep the records required by Tables 6 and 7 to this 
subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation 
that applies to you.
* * * * *

0
15. Section 63.7133 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) Any records required to be maintained by this part that are 
submitted electronically via the EPA's CEDRI may be maintained in 
electronic format. This ability to maintain electronic copies does not 
affect the requirement for facilities to make records, data, and 
reports available upon request to a delegated air agency or the EPA as 
part of an on-site compliance evaluation.

0
16. Section 63.7140 is amended to read as follows:


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

    Table 9 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 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.

0
17. Section 63.7141 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7141   Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) 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) and (c).
    (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.
    (7) Approval of an alternative to any electronic reporting to the 
EPA required by this subpart.

0
18. Section 63.7142 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) as paragraphs (a)(3) and 
(a)(4);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a)(2);
0
d. Revising newly designated paragraph (a)(4) introductory text, and 
paragraphs (a)(4)(i), and (a)(4)(v);
0
e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) as paragraphs (b)(3) and 
(b)(4);
0
f. Adding new paragraph (b)(2); and
0
g. Revising newly designated paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4).

[[Page 44982]]

    The revisions and additions read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
    (2) As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A, ASTM D6348-03 
(Reapproved 2010) including Annexes A1 through A8 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
320 of appendix A, provided that the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
and (ii) of this section are followed:
    (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each 
target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be 
acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 
percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not 
meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not 
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that 
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be 
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be 
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the 
following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the 
Stack))/(%R) x 100; or
* * * * *
    (4) As an alternative to EPA Method 321, ASTM Method D6735-01 
(Reapproved 2009), (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), 
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 (Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
    (v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM 
Method D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009) is conducted, and the percent 
recovery is calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-
01 (Reapproved 2009).
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) As an alternative to Method 320 of Appendix A, ASTM D6348-03 
(Reapproved 2010) including Annexes A1 through A8 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14). ASTM D6348-12e1 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 
320 of appendix A, provided that the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 
and (ii) of this section are followed:
    (i) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to 
ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory.
    (ii) In ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking 
Technique), the percent recovery (%R) must be determined for each 
target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be 
acceptable for a compound, %R must be greater than or equal to 70 
percent and less than or equal to 130 percent. If the %R value does not 
meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data are not 
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that 
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be 
adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound must be 
reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be 
corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using the 
following equation: Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in the 
Stack))/(%R) x 100; or
    (3) Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter; or
    (4) As an alternative to Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 
2010), (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), 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 (Reapproved 2010) as measurable;
    (ii) This ASTM should not be used for methane and ethane because 
their atomic mass is less than 35 and
    (iii) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010) should never be specified as 
a total VOC method.
* * * * *

0
19. Section 63.7143 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (3) under the definition of ``Deviation.''
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``On-specification lime 
product,'' ``Shutdown'' and ``Startup.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.7143   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *

Deviation * * *

    (3) Prior to the relevant compliance date for your source as 
specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), 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.
* * * * *
    On-specification Lime Product means lime product that has been 
sufficiently calcined to meet end use requirements.
* * * * *
    Shutdown means the cessation of kiln operation. Shutdown begins 
when feed to the kiln is reduced below planned production quantities 
and ends when stone feed is halted and fuel combustion from the main 
burner ceases.
* * * * *
    Startup means the beginning of kiln operation. Startup begins when 
a shutdown kiln begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup ends 
when the lime kiln first generates on-specification lime product or 12 
hours following first discharge from the kiln, whichever is earlier.
* * * * *

0
20. Table 1 to subpart AAAAA is amended by revising the introductory 
text to read as follows:

Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Emission Limits

    As required in Sec.  63.7090(a), you must meet each emission limit 
in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and 
coolers during startup and shutdown (See Table 2 for emission limits 
for kilns and coolers during startup and shutdown).
* * * * *

0
21. Redesignate tables 2 through 8 to subpart AAAAA as tables 3 through 
9 to subpart AAAA.

0
22. Add new Table 2 to subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7090(b), on and after the relevant 
compliance date for your source as specified in Sec.  63.7083(e), you 
must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to 
you.

[[Page 44983]]



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


0
23. Revise newly redesignated Table 3 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7090(b), you must meet each operating limit 
in the following table that applies to you, except for kilns and 
coolers during startup and shutdown (See Table 2 for operating limits 
during startup and shutdown).

          Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Operating Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             For . . .                         You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime     Maintain and operate the FF such
 cooler (if there is a separate      that the BLDS or PM detector alarm
 exhaust to the atmosphere from      condition does not exist for more
 the associated lime cooler)         than 5 percent of the total
 equipped with an FF.                operating time in a 6-month period;
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(d) through (f) and
                                     Table 6 to this subpart. In lieu of
                                     a BLDS or PM detector maintain the
                                     FF such that the 6-minute average
                                     opacity for any 6-minute block
                                     period does not exceed 15 percent;
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(f) and (g) and Table
                                     6 to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a   a. Maintain the 3-hour block exhaust
 wet scrubber.                       gas stream pressure drop across the
                                     wet scrubber greater than or equal
                                     to the pressure drop operating
                                     limit established during the most
                                     recent PM performance test; and
                                    b. 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 maintain
 electrostatic precipitator.         and operate the ESP such that the
                                     PM detector alarm is not activated
                                     and alarm condition does not exist
                                     for more than 5 percent of the
                                     total operating time in a 6-month
                                     period, and comply with Sec.
                                     63.7113(e); or, maintain the ESP
                                     such that the 6-minute average
                                     opacity for any 6-minute block
                                     period does not exceed 15 percent,
                                     and comply with the requirements in
                                     Sec.   63.7113(g); and comply with
                                     the requirements in Sec.
                                     63.7113(f) and Table 6 to this
                                     subpart.
4. Each PSH operation subject to a  Maintain the 3-hour block average
 PM limit which uses a wet           exhaust gas stream pressure drop
 scrubber.                           across the wet scrubber greater
                                     than or equal to the 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.
5. All affected sources...........  Prepare a written OM&M plan; the
                                     plan must include the items listed
                                     in Sec.   63.7100(d) and the
                                     corrective actions to be taken when
                                     required in Table 6 to this
                                     subpart.
6. Each emission unit equipped      a. Vent captured emissions through a
 with an add-on air pollution        closed system, except that dilution
 control device.                     air may be added to emission
                                     streams for the purpose of
                                     controlling temperature at the
                                     inlet to an FF; and
                                    b. Operate each capture/collection
                                     system according to the procedures
                                     and requirements in the OM&M plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
24. Revise newly redesignated Table 4 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7114, you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according 
to the following table.

[[Page 44984]]



  Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Initial Compliance With Emission
                                 Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          You have
                                                    demonstrated initial
                                For the following   compliance, if after
          For . . .           emission limit . . .      following the
                                                    requirements in Sec.
                                                         63.7112 . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All new or existing lime   PM emissions must     The kiln outlet PM
 kilns and their associated    not exceed 0.12 lb/   emissions (and if
 lime coolers (kilns/          tsf for all           applicable, summed
 coolers).                     existing kilns/       with the separate
                               coolers with dry      cooler PM
                               controls, 0.60 lb/    emissions), based
                               tsf for existing      on the PM emissions
                               kilns/coolers with    measured using
                               wet scrubbers, 0.10   Method 5 in
                               lb/tsf for all new    appendix A to part
                               kilns/coolers, or a   60 of this chapter
                               weighted average      and the stone feed
                               calculated            rate measurement
                               according to Eq. 3    over the period of
                               in Sec.   63.7112.    initial 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   PM emissions must     The outlet PM
 PHS operations at a new or    not exceed 0.05 g/    emissions, based on
 existing affected source.     dscm.                 Method 5 or Method
                                                     17 in 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   Emissions must not    Each of the thirty 6-
 PSH operations at a new or    exceed 7 percent      minute opacity
 existing affected source,     opacity.              averages during the
 unless the stack emissions                          initial compliance
 are discharged through a                            period, using
 wet scrubber control device.                        Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A 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    Emissions must not    Each of the 6-minute
 all PSH operations at a new   exceed 10 percent     opacity averages
 or existing affected source.  opacity.              during the initial
                                                     compliance period,
                                                     using Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A to part
                                                     60 of this chapter,
                                                     does not exceed the
                                                     10 percent opacity
                                                     limit.
5. All PSH operations at a    All of the            All the PSH
 new or existing affected      individually          operations enclosed
 source, enclosed in           affected PSH          in the building
 building.                     operations must       have demonstrated
                               comply with the       initial compliance
                               applicable PM and     according to the
                               opacity emission      applicable
                               limitations for       requirements for
                               items 2 through 4     items 2 through 4
                               of this Table 4, or   of this Table 4; or
                               the building must     if you are
                               comply with the       complying with the
                               following: There      building emission
                               must be no VE from    limitations, there
                               the building,         are no VE from the
                               except from a vent,   building according
                               and vent emissions    to item 18 of Table
                               must not exceed the   5 to this subpart
                               emission              and Sec.
                               limitations in        63.7112(k), and you
                               items 2 and 3 of      demonstrate initial
                               this Table 4.         compliance with
                                                     applicable building
                                                     vent emissions
                                                     limitations
                                                     according to the
                                                     requirements in
                                                     items 2 and 3 of
                                                     this Table 4.
6. Each FF that controls      Emissions must not    Each of the ten 6-
 emissions from only an        exceed 7 percent      minute averages
 individual storage bin.       opacity.              during the 1-hour
                                                     initial compliance
                                                     period, using
                                                     Method 9 in
                                                     appendix A to part
                                                     60 of this chapter,
                                                     does not exceed the
                                                     7 percent opacity
                                                     limit.
7. Each set of multiple       You must comply with  You demonstrate
 storage bins with combined    emission              initial compliance
 stack emissions.              limitations in        according to the
                               items 2 and 3 of      requirements in
                               this Table 4.         items 2 and 3 of
                                                     this Table 4.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
25. Revise newly redesignated Table 5 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7112, you must conduct each performance 
test in the following table that applies to you.

                     Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            According to the
             For . . .                  You must . . .             Using . . .          following requirements .
                                                                                                  . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each          Select the location    Method 1 or 1A of appendix  Sampling sites must be
 associated lime cooler, if there    of the sampling port   A to part 60 of this        located at the outlet of
 is a separate exhaust to the        and the number of      chapter; and Sec.           the control device(s)
 atmosphere from the associated      traverse ports.        63.6(d)(1)(i).              and prior to any
 lime cooler.                                                                           releases to the
                                                                                        atmosphere.

[[Page 44985]]

 
2. Each lime kiln and each          Determine velocity     Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F,   Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there    and volumetric flow    or 2G in appendix A to
 is a separate exhaust to the        rate.                  part 60 of this chapter.
 atmosphere from the associated
 lime cooler.
3. Each lime kiln and each          Conduct gas molecular  Method 3, 3A, or 3B in      You may use ASME PTC
 associated lime cooler, if there    weight analysis.       appendix A to part 60 of    19.10-1981--Part 10
 is a separate exhaust to the                               this chapter.               (available for purchase
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         from Three Park Avenue,
 lime cooler.                                                                           New York, NY 10016-5990)
                                                                                        as an alternative to
                                                                                        using the manual
                                                                                        procedures (but not
                                                                                        instrumental procedures)
                                                                                        in Method 3B.
4. Each lime kiln and each          Measure moisture       Method 4 in appendix A to   Not applicable.
 associated lime cooler, if there    content of the stack   part 60 of this chapter.
 is a separate exhaust to the        gas.
 atmosphere from the associated
 lime cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each          Measure PM emissions.  Method 5 in appendix A to   Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                           part 60 of this chapter.    the source is operating
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                           at representative
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         operating conditions in
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                          accordance with Sec.
 negative pressure PM control                                                           63.7(e) before the
 device.                                                                                relevant compliance date
                                                                                        for your source as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.7083(e) and Sec.
                                                                                        63.7112(b) on and after
                                                                                        the relevant compliance
                                                                                        date for your source as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.7083(e); the minimum
                                                                                        sampling volume must be
                                                                                        0.85 dry standard cubic
                                                                                        meter (dscm) (30 dry
                                                                                        standard cubic foot
                                                                                        (dscf)); if there is a
                                                                                        separate lime cooler
                                                                                        exhaust to the
                                                                                        atmosphere, you must
                                                                                        conduct the Method 5
                                                                                        test of the cooler
                                                                                        exhaust concurrently
                                                                                        with the kiln exhaust
                                                                                        test.
6. Each lime kiln and each          Measure PM emissions.  Method 5D in appendix A to  Conduct the test(s) when
 associated lime cooler, if there                           part 60 of this chapter.    the source is operating
 is a separate exhaust to the                                                           at representative
 atmosphere from the associated                                                         operating conditions in
 lime cooler, and which uses a                                                          accordance with Sec.
 positive pressure FF or ESP.                                                           63.7(e) before the
                                                                                        relevant compliance date
                                                                                        for your source as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.7083(e) and Sec.
                                                                                        63.7112(b) on and after
                                                                                        the relevant compliance
                                                                                        date for your source as
                                                                                        specified in Sec.
                                                                                        63.7083(e); if there is
                                                                                        a separate lime cooler
                                                                                        exhaust to the
                                                                                        atmosphere, you must
                                                                                        conduct the Method 5
                                                                                        test of the separate
                                                                                        cooler exhaust
                                                                                        concurrently with the
                                                                                        kiln exhaust test.
7. Each lime kiln.................  Determine the mass     Any suitable device.......  Calibrate and maintain
                                     rate of stone feed                                 the device according to
                                     to the kiln during                                 manufacturer's
                                     the kiln PM                                        instructions; the
                                     emissions test.                                    measuring device used
                                                                                        must be accurate to
                                                                                        within 5
                                                                                        percent of the mass rate
                                                                                        of stone feed over its
                                                                                        operating range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a   Establish the          Data for the gas stream     The continuous pressure
 wet scrubber.                       operating limit for    pressure drop measurement   drop measurement device
                                     the average gas        device during the kiln PM   must be accurate within
                                     stream pressure drop   performance test.           plus or minus 1 percent;
                                     across the wet                                     you must collect the
                                     scrubber.                                          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   Establish the          Data from the liquid flow   The continuous scrubbing
 wet scrubber.                       operating limit for    rate measurement device     liquid flow rate
                                     the average liquid     during the kiln PM          measuring device must be
                                     flow rate to the       performance test.           accurate within plus or
                                     scrubber.                                          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  Have installed and     Standard operating          According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with    have operating the     procedures incorporated     requirements in Sec.
 a PM detector.                      BLDS or PM detector    into the OM&M plan.         63.7113(d) or (e),
                                     prior to the                                       respectively.
                                     performance test.

[[Page 44986]]

 
11. Each lime kiln equipped with a  Have installed and     Standard operating          According to the
 FF or ESP that is monitored with    have operating the     procedures incorporated     requirements in Sec.
 a COMS.                             COMS prior to the      into the OM&M plan and as   63.7113(g).
                                     performance test.      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 in    The sample volume must be
 operation, vent from a building                            appendix A to part 60 of    at least 1.70 dscm (60
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                          this chapter.               dscf); for Method 5, if
 of multiple storage bins with                                                          the gas stream being
 combined stack emissions, which                                                        sampled is at ambient
 is subject to a PM emission limit.                                                     temperature, the
                                                                                        sampling probe and
                                                                                        filter may be operated
                                                                                        without heaters; and if
                                                                                        the gas stream is above
                                                                                        ambient temperature, the
                                                                                        sampling probe and
                                                                                        filter may be operated
                                                                                        at a temperature high
                                                                                        enough, but no higher
                                                                                        than 121 [deg]C (250
                                                                                        [deg]F), to prevent
                                                                                        water condensation on
                                                                                        the filter (Method 17
                                                                                        may be used only with
                                                                                        exhaust gas temperatures
                                                                                        of not more than 250
                                                                                        [deg]F).
13. Each stack emission from a PSH  Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 operation, vent from a building     observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 3 hours and
 enclosing a PSH operation, or set                                                      you must obtain at least
 of multiple storage bins with                                                          thirty, 6-minute
 combined stack emissions, which                                                        averages.
 is subject to an opacity limit.
14. Each stack emissions source     Establish the average  Data for the gas stream     The pressure drop
 from a PSH operation subject to a   gas stream pressure    pressure drop measurement   measurement device must
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a   drop across the wet    device during the PSH       be accurate within plus
 wet scrubber.                       scrubber.              operation stack PM          or minus 1 percent; you
                                                            performance test.           must 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     Establish the          Data from the liquid flow   The continuous scrubbing
 from a PSH operation subject to a   operating limit for    rate measurement device     liquid flow rate
 PM or opacity limit, which uses a   the average liquid     during the PSH operation    measuring device must be
 wet scrubber.                       flow rate to the       stack PM performance test.  accurate within plus or
                                     scrubber.                                          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).
16. Each FF that controls           Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 emissions from only an              observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 1 hour and
 individual, enclosed, new or                                                           you must obtain ten 6-
 existing storage bin.                                                                  minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any     Conduct opacity        Method 9 in appendix A to   The test duration must be
 PSH operation subject to an         observations.          part 60 of this chapter.    for at least 3 hours,
 opacity limit.                                                                         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     Conduct VE check.....  The specifications in Sec.  The performance test must
 PSH operation, that is subject to                            63.7112(k).               be conducted while all
 a VE limit.                                                                            affected PSH operations
                                                                                        within the building are
                                                                                        operating; the
                                                                                        performance test for
                                                                                        each affected building
                                                                                        must be at least 75
                                                                                        minutes, with each side
                                                                                        of the building and roof
                                                                                        being observed for at
                                                                                        least 15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
26. Amend newly redesignated Table 6 to subpart AAAAA by revising the 
introductory text to read as follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7121, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with each operating limit listed in Table 3 to subpart AAAAA 
that applies to you, according to the following table:

Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With 
Operating Limits

* * * * *

0
27. Revise newly redesignated Table 7 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    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:

[[Page 44987]]



 Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Periodic Monitoring for Compliance
                With Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                     emission       You must demonstrate
           For . . .             limitation . . .   ongoing compliance .
                                                            . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each PSH operation subject   a. 7-10 percent    (i) Conducting a
 to an opacity limitation as     opacity,           monthly 1-minute VE
 required in Table 1 to this     depending on the   check of each
 subpart, or any vents from      PSH operation,     emission unit in
 buildings subject to an         as required in     accordance with Sec.
 opacity limitation.             Table 1 to this      63.7121(e); the
                                 subpart.           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
                                                   (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    a. No VE.........  (i) Conducting a
 VE limit, according to item 8                      monthly VE check of
 of Table 1 to this subpart.                        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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
28. Revise newly redesignated Table 8 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7131, you must submit each report in this 
table that applies to you.

      Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 The report must     You must submit the
   You must submit a . . .        contain . . .         report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Compliance report........  a. If there are no    Semiannually
                               deviations from any   according to the
                               emission              requirements in
                               limitations           Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               VE limit) that
                               applies to you, a
                               statement that
                               there were no
                               deviations from the
                               emission
                               limitations during
                               the reporting
                               period;
                              b. If there were no   Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CMS,        requirements in
                               including any         Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring system,
                               was out-of-control
                               as specified in
                               Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                               a statement that
                               there were no
                               periods during
                               which the CMS was
                               out-of-control
                               during the
                               reporting period;
                              c. If you have a      Semiannually
                               deviation from any    according to the
                               emission limitation   requirements in
                               (emission limit,      Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               VE limit) during
                               the reporting
                               period, the report
                               must contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(d);

[[Page 44988]]

 
                              d. If there were      Semiannually
                               periods during        according to the
                               which the CMS,        requirements in
                               including any         Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring system,
                               was out-of-control,
                               as specified in
                               Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(e); and
                              e. Before the         Semiannually
                               relevant compliance   according to the
                               date for your         requirements in
                               source as specified   Sec.   63.7131(b).
                               in Sec.
                               63.7083(e), if you
                               had a startup,
                               shutdown or
                               malfunction during
                               the reporting
                               period and you took
                               actions consistent
                               with your SSMP, the
                               compliance report
                               must include the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.10(d)(5)(i).
                               On and after the
                               relevant compliance
                               date for your
                               source as specified
                               in Sec.
                               63.7083(e), if you
                               had a startup,
                               shutdown or
                               malfunction during
                               the reporting
                               period and you
                               failed to meet an
                               applicable
                               standard, the
                               compliance report
                               must include the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(c)(3).
2. Before the relevant        Actions taken for     By fax or telephone
 compliance date for your      the event.            within 2 working
 source as specified in Sec.                         days after starting
   63.7083(e), an immediate                          actions
 startup, shutdown, and                              inconsistent with
 malfunction report if you                           the SSMP.
 had a startup, shutdown, or
 malfunction during the
 reporting period that is
 not consistent with your
 SSMP.
3. Before the relevant        The information in    By letter within 7
 compliance date for your      Sec.                  working days after
 source as specified in Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii).      the end of the
   63.7083(e), an immediate                          event unless you
 startup, shutdown, and                              have made
 malfunction report if you                           alternative
 had a startup, shutdown, or                         arrangements with
 malfunction during the                              the permitting
 reporting period that is                            authority. See Sec.
 not consistent with your                              63.10(d)(5)(ii).
 SSMP.
(4) Performance Test Report.  The information       According to the
                               required in Sec.      requirements of
                               63.7(g).              Sec.   63.7131.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
29. Revise newly redesignated Table 9 to subpart AAAAA to read as 
follows:
    As required in Sec.  63.7140, you must comply with the applicable 
General Provisions requirements according to the following table:

            Table 9 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Am I subject to this
               Citation                 Summary of 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 Applicability    Yes....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.7081
                                        Determination.                                    and 63.7142 specify
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          applicability
                                                                                          determination
                                                                                          requirements.
Sec.   63.1(b)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(b)(3)....................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................
                                        Determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(1)....................  Applicability After      Yes....................
                                        Standard Established.
Sec.   63.1(c)(2)....................  Permit Requirements....  No.....................  Area sources not
                                                                                          subject to subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA, except all
                                                                                          sources must make
                                                                                          initial applicability
                                                                                          determination.
Sec.   63.1(c)(3)-(4)................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(c)(5)....................  Area Source Becomes      Yes....................
                                        Major.
Sec.   63.1(d).......................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.1(e).......................  Applicability of Permit  Yes....................
                                        Program.
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Yes....................  Additional definitions
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.7143.
Sec.   63.3(a)-(c)...................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2).............  Prohibited Activities..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5).............  .......................  No.....................

[[Page 44989]]

 
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 Approval,   Yes....................
                                        Applicability.
Sec.   63.5(b)(5)....................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.5(b)(6)....................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.5(c).......................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.5(d)(1)-(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)(i).................  General Duty to          Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Minimize Emissions.      compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for general
                                                                 relevant compliance      duty requirement.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  Requirement to Correct   Yes before the relevant
                                        Malfunctions ASAP.       compliance date for
                                                                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Operation and            Yes....................
                                        Maintenance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.6(e)(2)....................  .......................  No.....................  [Reserved].
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown        Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Malfunction Plan.        compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), the OM&M
                                                                No on and after the       plan must address
                                                                 relevant compliance      periods of startup and
                                                                 date for your source     shutdown. See Sec.
                                                                 as specified in Sec.     63.7100(d).
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7100. For
                                                                                          periods of startup and
                                                                                          shutdown, see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7090(c).
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3).............  Alternative Standard...  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)....................  SSM exemption..........  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7100. For
                                                                                          periods of startup and
                                                                                          shutdown, see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7090(c).
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)....................  Methods for Determining  Yes....................
                                        Compliance.
Sec.   63.6(h)(3)....................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(4)-(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 Opacity  Yes....................
                                        and VE.
Sec.   63.6(h)(9)....................  Adjustment of Opacity    Yes....................
                                        Limit.
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)............  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
Sec.   63.6(i)(15)...................  .......................  No.....................

[[Page 44990]]

 
Sec.   63.6(i)(16)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes....................
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/Test   Yes....................
                                        Plan.
Sec.   63.7(d).......................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                                                 compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7112(b).
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4)................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Alternative Test Method  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(g).......................  Data Analysis..........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.7(h).......................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)....................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)....................  Monitoring.............  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)....................  .......................  No.....................
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Monitoring.............  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)-(3)................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  CMS Operation/           Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Maintenance.             compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for OM&M
                                                                 relevant compliance      requirements.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  CMS Spare Parts........  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Requirement to Develop   Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        SSM Plan for CMS.        compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                                                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), no longer
                                                                No on and after the       required.
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(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 and   Yes....................  No CEMS are required
                                        CEMS.                                             under subpart AAAAA;
                                                                                          see Sec.   63.7113 for
                                                                                          CPMS requirements.
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....................  Minimum COM procedures.  Yes....................  COM not required.
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)....................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(c)(7)-(8)................  CMS Requirements.......  Yes....................
Sec.   63.8(d)(1)-(2)................  Quality Control........  Yes....................  See also Sec.
                                                                                          63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(d)(3)....................  Quality Control........  Yes before the relevant
                                                                 compliance date for
                                                                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.8(e).......................  Performance Evaluation   Yes....................  See also Sec.
                                        for CMS.                                          63.7113.
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5).............  Alternative Monitoring   Yes....................
                                        Method.
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative to Relative  No.....................  No CEMS required in
                                        Accuracy Test for CEMS.                           subpart AAAAA.
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 Notifications..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Compliance   Yes....................
                                        Extension.
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  New Source Notification  Yes....................
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Yes....................
                                        Performance Test.
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of VE/      Yes....................  This requirement only
                                        Opacity Test.                                     applies to opacity and
                                                                                          VE performance tests
                                                                                          required in Table 5 to
                                                                                          subpart AAAAA.
                                                                                          Notification not
                                                                                          required for VE/
                                                                                          opacity test under
                                                                                          Table 7 to subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA.
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Not required for
                                        Notifications.                                    operating parameter
                                                                                          monitoring.

[[Page 44991]]

 
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 Deadlines  Yes....................
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Yes....................
                                        Information.
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................  See Sec.  Sec.
                                        General Requirements.                             63.7131 through
                                                                                          63.7133.
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  Records................  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)................  Recordkeeping of         Yes before the relevant
                                        Occurrence and           compliance date for
                                        Duration of Startups     your source as
                                        and Shutdowns.           specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  Recordkeeping of         Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Failures to Meet a       compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        Standard.                your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7132 for
                                                                 relevant compliance      recordkeeping of (1)
                                                                 date for your source     date, time and
                                                                 as specified in Sec.     duration; (2) listing
                                                                 63.7083(e).              of affected source or
                                                                                          equipment, and an
                                                                                          estimate of the
                                                                                          quantity of each
                                                                                          regulated pollutant
                                                                                          emitted over the
                                                                                          standard; and (3)
                                                                                          actions to minimize
                                                                                          emissions and correct
                                                                                          the failure.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Maintenance Records....  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)...........  Actions Taken to         Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Minimize Emissions       compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        During SSM.              your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7100 for OM&M
                                                                 relevant compliance      requirements.
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xii).........  Recordkeeping for CMS..  Yes....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Records for Relative     No.....................
                                        Accuracy Test.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records for              Yes....................
                                        Notification.
Sec.   63.10(b)(3)...................  Applicability            Yes....................
                                        Determinations.
Sec.   63.10(c)......................  Additional CMS           No.....................  See Sec.   63.7132.
                                        Recordkeeping.
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Yes....................
                                        Requirements.
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Performance Test         Yes....................
                                        Results.
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Opacity or VE            Yes....................  For the periodic
                                        Observations.                                     monitoring
                                                                                          requirements in Table
                                                                                          7 to 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)(i)................  Periodic Startup,        Yes before the relevant  On and after the
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for      relevant compliance
                                        Reports.                 your source as           date for your source
                                                                 specified in Sec.        as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).              63.7083(e), see Sec.
                                                                No on and after the       63.7131 for
                                                                 relevant compliance      malfunction reporting
                                                                 date for your source     requirements.
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)(ii)...............  Immediate Startup,       Yes before the relevant
                                        Shutdown, Malfunction    compliance date for
                                        Reports.                 your source as
                                                                 specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
                                                                No on and after the
                                                                 relevant compliance
                                                                 date for your source
                                                                 as specified in Sec.
                                                                 63.7083(e).
Sec.   63.10(e)......................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  See specific
                                                                                          requirements in
                                                                                          subpart AAAAA, see
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7131.
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Waiver for               Yes....................
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
Sec.   63.11(a)-(b)..................  Control Device and Work  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
                                        Practice Requirements.
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 and
                                        Confidentiality.

[[Page 44992]]

 
Sec.   63.16.........................  Performance Track        Yes....................
                                        Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  63.7831  [AMENDED]

0
30. In Sec.  63.7831(f)(4), add the phrase ``(incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  63.14)'' immediately following the words 
``September 1997''.
[FR Doc. 2020-12588 Filed 7-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


