[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78046-78087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31233]



[[Page 78045]]

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

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





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



40 CFR Part 63



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

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 78046]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052; FRL-7418-1]
RIN 2060-AG72


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime 
Manufacturing Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the lime manufacturing source category. The 
lime manufacturing emission units regulated would include lime kilns, 
lime coolers, and various types of materials processing operations 
(MPO). The EPA has identified the lime manufacturing industry as a 
major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions including, but 
not limited to, hydrogen chloride (HCl), antimony, arsenic, beryllium, 
cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. 
Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause adverse 
health effects such as cancer; irritation of the lung, skin, and mucus 
membranes; effects on the central nervous system; and kidney damage. 
The proposed standards would require all major sources subject to the 
rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the application of 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT). Implementation of the 
standards as proposed would reduce non-volatile metal HAP emissions 
from the lime manufacturing industry source category by approximately 
21 megagrams per year (Mg/yr) (23 tons per year (tons/yr)) and would 
reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) by 14,000 Mg/yr (16,000 
tons/yr).

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before February 18, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 9, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
January 21, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, 
by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
new EPA facility complex in Research Triangle Park, NC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General and technical information. 
Joseph P. Wood, P.E., Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emissions 
Standards Division (C504-05), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5446, electronic mail (e-
mail) address wood.joe@epa.gov.
    Methods, sampling, and monitoring information. Michael Toney, 
Source Measurement Technology Group, Emission Monitoring and Analysis 
Division (D205-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5247, e-mail address 
toney.mike@epa.gov.
    Economic impacts analysis. Eric Crump, Innovative Strategies and 
Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division (C339-
01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 
number (919) 541-4719, e-mail address crump.eric@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. Categories and entities 
potentially regulated by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Category         NAICS           Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       32741   Commercial lime manufacturing plants.
                       33111   Captive lime manufacturing plants at iron
                                and steel mills.
                        3314   Captive lime manufacturing plants at
                                nonferrous metal production facilities.
                      327125   Producers of dead-burned dolomite (Non-
                                clay refractory manufacturing).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.7081 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the technical contact 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Air Docket) in the EPA 
Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., 
NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, 
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the 
public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and 
comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://
www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or review public comments, access the 
index of the contents of the official public docket, and to access 
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate 
docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is 
not included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that 
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
this document.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is

[[Page 78047]]

restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, 
will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.
    Comments. You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt 
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the 
subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your 
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments 
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked 
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    Comments Submitted Electronically. If you submit an electronic 
comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, 
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in 
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the 
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter 
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact 
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's 
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included 
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and 
made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to 
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go 
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. The system is 
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-
docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. In contrast to 
EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an 
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to 
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the 
mailing address identified in this document. These electronic 
submissions will be accepted in Wordperfect or ASCII file format. Avoid 
the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    Comments Submitted By Mail. Send your comments (in duplicate, if 
possible) to: Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, EPA Docket Center (Air 
Docket), U.S. EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0052.
    Comments Submitted By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your 
comments (in duplicate, if possible) to: EPA Docket Center, U.S. EPA 
West, Mail Code 6102T, Room B108, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0052. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket Center's normal hours of 
operation as identified in this document.
    Comments Submitted By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-
1741, Attention Lime Manufacturing NESHAP Docket, Docket ID No. OAR-
2002-0052.
    CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through 
EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS 
Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Attention Joseph Wood, Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0052. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI 
by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you submit 
CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 
and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific 
information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed 
except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mr. 
Joseph Wood, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards 
Division (C504-05), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-5446, at least 2 days in advance of the public hearing. 
Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also call Mr. 
Joseph Wood to verify the time, date, and location of the hearing. The 
public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity to 
present data, views, or arguments concerning these proposed emission 
standards.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of this action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance 
page for newly proposed rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, 
call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Introduction
    A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule?
    B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed?
    E. What Are the Health Effects of the HAP Emitted From the Lime 
Manufacturing Industry?
    F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?
    G. What Are the Processes and Their Emissions at a Lime 
Manufacturing Plant?
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
    A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed 
Rule?
    B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are 
Included Under the Definition of Affected Source?
    C. What Pollutants Are Regulated By the Proposed Rule?
    D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?
    E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?
    F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed 
Rule?

[[Page 78048]]

    G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance 
with the Proposed Rule?
    H. How Do I Determine if My Lime Manufacturing Plant Is a Major 
Source and Thus Subject to the Proposed Rule?
III. Rationale for Proposed Rule
    A. How Did We Determine the Source Category to Regulate?
    B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source?
    C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants to Regulate?
    D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at 
Existing Lime Manufacturing Plants?
    E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For Emission Units at New 
Lime Manufacturing Plants?
    F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?
    G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
    H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring 
Requirements for Determining Compliance With This Proposed Rule?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. How Many Facilities Are Subject To the Proposed Rule?
    B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    C. What Are the Water Impacts?
    D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    G. What Are the Economic Impacts?
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of the Proposed Rule?

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

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

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The Lime 
Manufacturing category of major sources covered by today's proposed 
NESHAP was listed on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major sources of HAP 
are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr of 
any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.

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

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

D. How Was the Proposed Rule Developed?

    We used several resources to develop the proposed rule, including 
questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site 
surveys of lime manufacturing facilities, operating and new source 
review permits, and permit applications. We researched the relevant 
technical literature and existing State and Federal regulations and 
consulted and met with representatives of the lime manufacturing 
industry, State and local representatives of air pollution agencies, 
Federal agency representatives (e.g., United States Geological Survey) 
and emission control and emissions measurement device vendors in 
developing the proposed rule. We also conducted an extensive emissions 
test program. Industry representatives provided emissions test data, 
arranged site surveys of lime manufacturing plants, participated in the 
emissions test program, reviewed draft questionnaires, provided 
information about their manufacturing processes and air pollution 
control technologies, and identified technical and regulatory issues. 
State representatives provided existing emissions test data, copies of 
permits and other information.

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

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

[[Page 78049]]

(e.g., lung irritation and congestion, alimentary effects such as 
nausea and vomiting, and effects on the kidney and central nervous 
system). We have classified three of the HAP--arsenic, chromium, and 
nickel--as human carcinogens and three others--beryllium, cadmium, and 
lead--as probable human carcinogens.

F. What Are Some Lime Manufacturing Industry Characteristics?

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

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

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

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What Lime Manufacturing Plants Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?

    The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and 
existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located 
with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime 
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 
factories would not be subject to the proposed rule. Other captive lime 
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills 
and magnesia production facilities, would be subject to the proposed 
rule. We define a lime manufacturing plant as any plant which uses a 
lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous 
material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime 
kiln calcination process including calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and 
dead-burned dolomite.

B. What Emission Units at a Lime Manufacturing Plant Are Included Under 
the Definition of Affected Source?

    The proposed rule would include the following emission units under 
the definition of affected source: Lime kilns and coolers, and MPO 
associated with limestone feed preparation (beginning with the raw 
material storage bin). The individual types of MPO that would be 
included under the definition of affected source are grinding mills, 
raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk 
loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, 
and belt conveyors--if they follow the raw material storage bin in the 
sequence of MPO. The MPO associated with lime products (such as 
quicklime and hydrated lime), lime kiln dust handling, quarry or mining 
operations, and fuels would not be subject to today's proposed rule. 
The MPO are further distinguished in the proposed rule as follows: (1) 
Whether their emissions are vented through a stack, (2) whether their 
emissions are fugitive emissions, (3) whether their emissions are 
vented through a stack with some fugitive emissions from the partial 
enclosure, and/or (4) whether the source is enclosed in a building. 
Finally, lime hydrators would not be included under the definition of 
affected source under the proposed NESHAP.

C. What Pollutants Are Regulated by the Proposed Rule?

    The proposed rule would establish PM emission limits for lime 
kilns, coolers, and MPO with stacks.

[[Page 78050]]

Particulate matter would be measured solely as a surrogate for the non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP. (Particulate matter of course is 
not itself a HAP, but is a typical and permissible surrogate for HAP 
metals. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d 625, 637-40 (D.C. 
Cir., 2000).) The proposed rule also would regulate opacity or visible 
emissions from most of the MPO, with opacity also serving as a 
surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals.

D. What Are the Emission Limits and Operating Limits?

1. Emission Limits
    The PM emission limit for all of the kilns and coolers at an 
existing lime manufacturing plant would be 0.12 pounds (lb) PM per ton 
(0.06 kilogram (kg) per Mg) of stone feed. The PM emission limit for 
all of the kilns and lime coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant 
would be 0.10 lb/ton of stone feed. These emission limits would apply 
to the combined emissions of all the kilns and coolers (assuming the 
cooler(s) has a separate exhaust vent to the atmosphere) at the lime 
manufacturing plant. In other words, the sum of the PM emission rates 
from all of the kilns and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing 
plant, divided by the sum of the production rates of the kilns at the 
existing lime manufacturing plant, would be used to determine 
compliance with the emission limit for kilns and coolers at an existing 
lime manufacturing plant. Similarly, the sum of the PM emission rates 
from all of the kilns and coolers, divided by the sum of the production 
of the kilns at a new plant, would be used to determine compliance with 
the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing 
plant.
    Emissions from MPO that are vented through a stack would be subject 
to a standard of 0.05 grams PM per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) 
and 7 percent opacity. Stack emissions from MPO that are controlled by 
wet scrubbers would be subject to the 0.05 grams PM per dry standard 
cubic meter PM limit but not subject to the opacity limit. Fugitive 
emissions from MPO would be subject to a 10 percent opacity limit.
    We are proposing that for each building enclosing any materials 
processing operation, each of the affected MPO in the building would 
have to comply individually with the applicable PM and opacity emission 
limitations discussed above. Otherwise, we propose that there must be 
no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and the 
building's vent emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry 
standard cubic meter and 7 percent opacity. We are proposing that for 
each fabric filter (FF) that controls emissions from only an 
individual, enclosed storage bin, the opacity emissions must not exceed 
7 percent. For each set of multiple storage bins with combined stack 
emissions, emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams PM per dry standard 
cubic meter and 7 percent opacity.
2. Operating Limits
    For lime kilns that use a wet scrubber PM control device, you would 
be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average gas stream pressure 
drop across the scrubber and the 3-hour rolling average scrubber liquid 
flow rate equal to or above the levels for the parameters that were 
established during the PM performance test.
    For lime kilns that use a FF PM control device, you would be 
required to maintain and operate the FF such that the bag leak 
detection system (BLDS) alarm is not activated and alarm condition does 
not exist for more than 5 percent of the operating time in each 6-month 
period. The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of 
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual 
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    For lime kilns that use an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) PM 
control device, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling 
average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP 
equal to or above the operating limits for these parameters that were 
established during the PM performance test. In lieu of complying with 
these ESP operating parameters, we are giving sources the option of 
monitoring PM levels with a PM detector in a manner similar to the 
procedures for monitoring PM from a FF using a BLDS. You would need to 
maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not 
activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent 
of the operating time in each 6-month period.
    In lieu of using a bag leak detector, PM detector, or monitoring 
ESP operating parameters for lime kilns with a FF or ESP control 
device, we are providing the option of monitoring opacity (as an 
operating limit) with a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). 
Sources that choose to use a COMS would be required to install and 
operate the COMS in accordance with Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), 
40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, and maintain the opacity level of the lime 
kiln exhaust at or below 15 percent for each 6-minute block period.
    For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet 
scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas 
stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow 
rate during the PM performance test. You would be required to maintain 
the 3-hour rolling average gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber 
and the 3-hour rolling average scrubber liquid flow rate equal to or 
above the levels for the parameters that were established during the PM 
performance test.
    You would be required to prepare a written operations, maintenance, 
and monitoring plan to cover all affected emission units. The plan 
would include procedures for proper operation and maintenance of each 
emission unit and its air pollution control device(s); procedures for 
monitoring and proper operation of monitoring systems in order to meet 
the emission limits and operating limits; and standard procedures for 
the use of a BLDS and PM detector, and any corrective actions to be 
taken when operating limits are deviated from, or when required in 
using a PM detector or BLDS.

E. When Must I Comply With the Proposed Rule?

    The compliance date for existing lime manufacturing plants would be 
[Date 3 years from the date a final rule is published in the Federal 
Register]. (Three years may be needed to install new, or retrofit 
existing, air pollution control equipment.) The date the final rule is 
published in the Federal Register is called the effective date of the 
rule. We are proposing that emission units at a new lime manufacturing 
plant (i.e., emission units for which construction or reconstruction 
commences after today's date) must be in compliance upon initial 
startup or the effective date of the rule, whichever is later.

F. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With the Proposed Rule?

1. Kiln and Coolers
    For the kiln and cooler PM emission limit, we are proposing that 
you must conduct a PM emissions test on the exhaust of each kiln at the 
lime manufacturing plant and measure the stone feed rate to each kiln 
during the test. The sum of the emissions from all the kilns at the 
existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average 
stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing lime manufacturing plant, 
must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton

[[Page 78051]]

stone feed; similarly, the sum of the emissions from all the kilns at a 
new lime manufacturing plant, divided by the sum of the average stone 
feed rates to each kiln at the new lime manufacturing plant, must not 
exceed the emission limit of 0.10 lb PM/ton stone feed. If you have a 
lime cooler(s) that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would 
be required to conduct a PM test on the cooler's exhaust concurrently 
with the kiln PM test. Then the sum of the emissions from all the kilns 
and coolers at the existing lime manufacturing plant, divided by the 
sum of the average stone feed rates to each kiln at the existing plant, 
must not exceed the emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton stone feed (or 
0.10 lb/ton of stone feed for kilns/coolers at new lime manufacturing 
plants). For kilns with an ESP or wet scrubber, you would be required 
to collect and record the applicable operating parameters during the PM 
performance test and then establish the operating limits based on those 
data.
2. Materials Processing Operations
    For the MPO with stacks and subject to PM emission limits, you 
would be required to conduct a PM emissions test on each stack exhaust, 
and the stack emissions must not exceed the emission limit of 0.05 g/
dscm. For the MPO with stack opacity limits, you would be required to 
conduct a 3-hour Method 9 test on the exhaust, and each of the 30 
consecutive, 6-minute opacity averages must not exceed 7 percent. The 
MPO that are controlled by wet scrubbers would not have an opacity 
limit, but you would be required to collect and record the wet scrubber 
operating parameters during the PM performance test and then establish 
the applicable operating limits based on those data.
    For MPO with fugitive emissions, you would be required to conduct a 
Method 9 test, and each of the consecutive 6-minute opacity averages 
must not exceed the applicable opacity limit. These Method 9 tests are 
for 3 hours, but the test duration may be reduced to 1 hour if certain 
criteria are met. Lastly, Method 9 tests or visible emissions checks 
may be performed on MPO inside of buildings, but additional lighting, 
improved access to equipment, and temporary installation of contrasting 
backgrounds may be needed. For additional guidance, see page 116 from 
the ``Regulatory and Inspection Manual for Nonmetallic Minerals 
Processing Plants,'' EPA report 305-B-97-008, November 1997.

G. How Do I Continuously or Periodically Demonstrate Compliance With 
the Proposed Rule?

1. General
    You would be required to install, operate, and maintain each 
required continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) such that the 
CPMS completes a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 
15-minute period. The CPMS would be required to have valid data from at 
least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a 
CPMS that is not out of control according to your operation, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. To calculate the average for each 3-
hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the 
hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that 
are based on valid data (i.e., not from out-of-control periods). The 3-
hour rolling average value for each operating parameter would be 
calculated as the average of each set of three successive 1-hour 
average values. The 3-hour rolling average would be updated each hour. 
Thus the 3-hour average rolls at 1-hour increments, i.e., once a 1-hour 
average has been determined based on at least four successive available 
15-minute averages, a new 1-hour average would be determined based on 
the next four successive available 15-minute averages.
    You would be required to develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the general 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3).
2. Kilns and Coolers
    For kilns controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to 
maintain the 3-hour rolling average of the exhaust gas stream pressure 
drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop 
operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test. 
You would be required to also maintain the 3-hour rolling average of 
the scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate 
operating limit established during the most recent performance test.
    For kilns controlled by an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP 
operating parameters rather than use a PM detector or a COMS, you would 
be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average current and voltage 
input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the 
average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established 
during the most recent performance test.
    Sources opting to monitor PM emissions from an ESP with a PM 
detector in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters or opacity would be 
required to maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector 
alarm is not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more 
than 5 percent of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the 
alarm sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions 
(per the operations and maintenance plan) within 1 hour of the alarm, 1 
hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the ESP 
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time 
will be counted. The sensor on the PM detection system would provide an 
output of relative PM emissions. The PM detection system would have an 
alarm that would sound automatically when it detects an increase in 
relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The PM detection 
systems would be required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and 
maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations.
    For kilns and lime coolers (if the cooler has a separate exhaust to 
the atmosphere) controlled by a FF and monitored with a BLDS, you would 
be required to maintain and operate the FF such that the BLDS alarm is 
not activated, and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 
percent of the operating time in a 6-month period. Each time the alarm 
sounds and the owner or operator initiates corrective actions (per the 
operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan) within 1 hour of the 
alarm, 1 hour of alarm time will be counted. If inspection of the FF 
demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm time 
will be counted. The sensor on the BLDS would be required to provide an 
output of relative PM emissions. The BLDS would be required to have an 
alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in 
relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. The BLDS would be 
required to be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that 
they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and 
recommendations. Standard operating procedures for the BLDS and PM 
detection systems would need to be incorporated into the operations, 
maintenance, and monitoring plan. We recommend that for electrodynamic 
(or other similar technology) BLDS, the standard operating procedures 
include concepts from EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997). This

[[Page 78052]]

document may be found on the world wide web at www.epa.gov/ttn/emc.
    For kilns and lime coolers monitored with a COMS, you would be 
required to maintain each 6-minute block average opacity level at or 
below 15 percent opacity. The COMS must be installed and operated in 
accordance with Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix B.
3. Materials Processing Operations
    For stack emissions from MPO which are controlled by a wet 
scrubber, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling average 
exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than 
or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the 
most recent PM performance test. You would be required to also maintain 
the 3-hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or 
equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the most 
recent performance test.
    For MPO subject to opacity limitations and which do not use a wet 
scrubber control device, you would be required to periodically 
demonstrate compliance as follows. You would be required to conduct a 
monthly 1-minute visible emissions check of each emissions unit under 
the affected source definition. If no visible emissions are observed in 
six consecutive monthly tests for any emission unit, you may decrease 
the frequency of testing from monthly to semiannually for that 
emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any semiannual 
test, you would be required to resume testing of that emissions unit on 
a monthly basis and maintain that schedule until no visible emissions 
are observed in six consecutive monthly tests. If no visible emissions 
are observed during the semiannual test for any emissions unit, you may 
decrease the frequency of testing from semiannually to annually for 
that emissions unit. If visible emissions are observed during any 
annual test, you would be required to resume visible emissions testing 
of that emissions unit on a monthly basis and maintain that schedule 
until no visible emissions are observed in six consecutive monthly 
tests.
    If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions 
check, you would be required to conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in 
accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The 
Method 9 test would be required to begin within 1 hour of any 
observation of visible emissions, and the 6-minute opacity reading 
would be required to not exceed the applicable opacity limit. We 
request comment on using more frequent visible emissions checks for 
MPO, such as going from monthly to quarterly, and then continuing with 
semiannual checks.

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

    The proposed rule would apply to lime manufacturing plants that are 
major sources, co-located with major sources, or are part of major 
sources. Each lime facility owner/operator would need to determine 
whether its plant is a major or area source, since this determines 
whether the lime manufacturing plant would be an affected source under 
the proposed rule. Section 112 of the CAA defines a major source as a 
``stationary source or group of stationary sources located within a 
contiguous area and under common control that emits or has the 
potential to emit considering controls, in the aggregate, 10 tons/yr or 
more of any HAP or 25 tons/yr or more of any combination of HAP.'' This 
definition may be interpreted to imply that the CAA requires an 
estimate of the facility's potential to emit all HAP from all emission 
sources in making a determination of whether the source is major or 
area. However, based on our data analysis, HCl is most likely the HAP 
that would account for the largest quantity of HAP emissions from a 
lime manufacturing plant. Although lime manufacturing plants emit HAP 
metals from most of the emission units at the plant site and organic 
HAP from the kiln, our analysis indicates that most likely the metal 
and organic HAP emissions would each be below the 10/25 tons/yr 
criteria. One potential approach to estimating HAP metals emissions 
from a lime manufacturing plant is to require measurement of the PM 
emissions from all of the emission units at the plant and then allow 
the use of a ratio (which we would specify in the final rule) of HAP 
metals to PM to calculate the metals emissions. We request comment on 
this approach to estimating HAP metals emissions. And although we are 
not proposing to require sources to test for all HAP to make a 
determination of whether the lime manufacturing plant is a major or 
area source, we do request comment on whether emissions testing of 
metal and/or organic HAP should be required for an owner or operator to 
claim that its lime manufacturing plant is an area source.
    We are proposing, however, to require that a source measure HCl 
emissions from the kiln(s) in order for it to claim it is an area 
source (provided HCl is emitted at less than 10 tons/yr). Due to the 
known problems with EPA Method 26 (which may have positive biases 
attributable to chloride salts rather than to HCl, and negative biases 
due to condensation and removal of HCl on the filter and/or in the 
sampling probe), we have decided that Methods 26 and 26A may not be 
used to measure HCl in the determination whether the source is an area 
source. We, in fact, adopted this same approach in the final NESHAP for 
the portland cement industry. See 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, and 64 
FR 31907 and 31920 (June 14, 1998).
    In addition, we worked with the American Society of Testing and 
Materials (ASTM), in conjunction with the National Lime Association 
(NLA), to develop an impinger-based method for the measurement of HCl 
based on Method 26 but which includes changes to the method to overcome 
the aforementioned biases. This ASTM HCl impinger-based method has been 
demonstrated on lime kilns and has been designated as ASTM Test Method 
D 6735-01. We approve of this method, and we propose to allow owners/
operators to use it to measure HCl from lime kilns to determine whether 
their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source. But because 
it is very important to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl 
emissions, we are proposing to require the paired-train option under 
section 11.2.6 of the method, and we are also proposing to require the 
post-test analyte spike option under section 11.2.7 of the method. 
Although we believe these additional quality assurance procedures are 
critical to obtain an accurate measurement of HCl, we seek comment on 
the appropriateness of requiring them.
    We attempted to utilize proposed EPA Method 322 (based on gas 
filter correlation infrared spectroscopy) to gather HCl data from lime 
kilns and encountered technical problems. These problems included 
inadequate data availability, spike recovery, and response time, which 
led to our decision in the promulgation of the NESHAP for the portland 
cement industry to not finalize EPA Method 322. Today, we are affirming 
that decision and propose that Method 322 may not be used to measure 
HCl in the determination whether a lime manufacturing plant is an area 
source.
    Based on the aforementioned difficulties with Method 26 and 
proposed Method 322, we propose that the test methods based on fourier 
transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, EPA Methods 320 and 321, will 
be acceptable for measuring HCl from lime kilns if the owner/operator 
wishes to

[[Page 78053]]

claim its lime manufacturing facility is not a major source. These FTIR 
methods were finalized along with the portland cement industry NESHAP, 
and this requirement would be consistent with those NESHAP. (As 
mentioned above, we are also proposing to allow sources to use ASTM 
Test Method D 6735-01 for the measurement of HCl to determine whether 
their lime manufacturing plant is a major or area source.)
    However, we acknowledge the NLA's concerns about the use of FTIR 
during the lime kiln test program. In letters the NLA sent to us, they 
suggested that in light of the alleged problems experienced by our test 
contractors in using FTIR, we should allow the use of Method 26 for 
measurement of HCl emissions from lime kilns. However, we do not 
completely agree with their assessment of the asserted difficulties we 
experienced with FTIR. Our response to NLA's concerns about FTIR may be 
found in the docket to the proposed rule. And despite any alleged 
problems with FTIR, we do not consider them to justify the use of 
Method 26 until the aforementioned problems with Method 26 can be 
resolved.

III. Rationale for Proposed Rule

A. How Did We Determine the Source Category To Regulate?

    Section 112(c) of the CAA directs the Agency to list each category 
of major sources that emits one or more of the HAP listed in section 
112(b) of the CAA. We published an initial list of source categories on 
July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). ``Lime Manufacturing'' is one of the 174 
categories of major sources on the initial list. As defined in our 
report, ``Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category 
List'' (EPA-450/3-91-030, July 1992), the lime manufacturing source 
category includes any facility engaged in the production of high 
calcium lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite. These are the 
same applicable lime products as defined in the new source performance 
standard (NSPS) for lime manufacturing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart 
HH) and in the proposed rule.
    According to the background document for the initial source 
category listing, the listing of lime manufacturing as a major source 
category was based on the Administrator's determination that some lime 
manufacturing plants would be major sources of chlorine and metal HAP 
including, but not limited to, compounds of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium. In addition, the 
results of emissions testing we conducted in the development of the 
proposed rule indicate that many lime manufacturing plants may be major 
sources of HCl. Hydrogen chloride emissions from these lime kiln tests 
using EPA Method 320 ranged from 0.007 to 2.0 lbs HCl per ton of lime 
produced. Assuming an average HCl emission factor of 0.4 lb/ton, a lime 
manufacturing plant would only have to produce 50,000 tons of lime per 
year (which is a small lime manufacturing plant) for it to be a major 
source (for this reason alone).
    The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from all new and 
existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-located 
with major sources, or are part of major sources (e.g., steel 
production facilities). One exception to this is that lime 
manufacturing operations located at pulp and paper mills would not be 
subject to the proposed rule. Lime manufacturing operations at pulp and 
paper mills would be subject to the NESHAP for combustion sources at 
kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper mills. See 66 FR 3180, January 
12, 2001.
    Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar processing plants would 
also not be subject to the NESHAP. Both the lime product and carbon 
dioxide in the beet sugar lime kiln exhaust are used in the beet sugar 
manufacturing process. Beet sugar lime kiln exhaust is typically routed 
through a series of gas washers to clean the exhaust gas prior to 
process use. The clean, cooled gas is then added to one or more 
carbonation units (which contain a mixture of beet juice, lime, and 
water) to provide the carbon dioxide necessary for carbonation and 
precipitation of lime, which purifies the beet sugar juice. Although 
the carbonation units are part of the sugar manufacturing process, they 
would provide additional cleaning of the lime kiln exhaust. Beet sugar 
plants typically operate only seasonally, and our analysis indicates 
that beet sugar plants are not major sources of HAP.

B. How Did We Determine the Affected Source?

    The proposed rule would define the affected source as the lime 
manufacturing plant, and would include all of the limestone MPO at a 
lime manufacturing plant, beginning with the raw material storage bin, 
and all of the lime kilns and coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. 
This definition of affected source conforms with the General Provisions 
40 CFR 63.2 definition, which essentially states that all emission 
units at a plant are to be considered as one affected source.
    A new lime manufacturing plant is defined as the collection of any 
limestone MPO, beginning with the raw material storage bin, and any 
lime kiln or cooler for which construction or reconstruction begins 
after December 20, 2002. Thus, it is possible for an existing lime 
manufacturing plant and a new lime manufacturing plant to be located at 
the same site. This definition of new affected source includes the same 
emission units as the existing affected source, except that the new 
affected source only includes those emission units for which 
construction or reconstruction begins after December 20, 2002. The 
definitions are different because the MACT PM emission limit for kilns 
and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant is more stringent than 
for those at an existing lime manufacturing plant.
    In general, the emission units which are included in the definition 
of new or existing affected source were selected based on regulatory 
history (e.g., the applicability of NSPS and the information included 
in the initial source category listing) and to be consistent with other 
MACT standards (e.g., the MACT standards for the portland cement 
industry).
    Although lime coolers were not among the list of emission units in 
the background document for the initial source category listing for 
lime manufacturing, lime coolers would be an emission unit under the 
definition of affected source in the proposed rule. All lime coolers 
are integrated with their associated kiln such that most coolers vent 
all of their exhaust (if there is an exhaust stream) to the kiln, 
although a few lime coolers (e.g., grate coolers) also vent a portion 
of their exhaust separately to the atmosphere.
    The specific MPO which are included in the affected source 
definition include the following emission units: all of the grinding 
mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, 
bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket 
elevators, and belt conveyors, beginning with the raw material storage 
bin and up to the kiln. We define MPO to include these emission units 
under the proposed subpart because these units are also subject to the 
NSPS for Nonmetallic Minerals Processing Plants (referred to in this 
preamble as the NSPS subpart OOO). We specifically solicit comment on 
whether raw material storage piles should be included in the affected 
source definition.
    In today's proposed rule, the first emission unit in the sequence 
of MPO which is included in the definition of affected source would be 
the raw

[[Page 78054]]

material storage bin. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point 
included under the affected source definition would be the transfer 
point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw 
material storage bin. This demarcation in the sequence of MPO which 
defines the first emission unit under the affected source definition is 
consistent with the applicability requirements under the NESHAP for the 
portland cement industry, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL.
    The MPO emission units that would be excluded from the affected 
source definition are described as follows. Any MPO which precedes the 
raw material storage bin, such as those in quarry or mine operations, 
is not included in the definition of affected source. Any operations 
that process only lime product, lime kiln dust, or fuel would be 
excluded from the definition. Truck dumping into any screening 
operation, feed hopper, or crusher would not be included among the 
emission units considered under the affected source definition. (These 
exclusions are consistent with the NSPS subpart OOO). Finally, lime 
hydrators would not be included as an emission unit under the affected 
source definition since all hydrators are controlled by integrated wet 
scrubbers, which capture the lime PM (and associated trace metallic 
HAP) and recycle the scrubber water. Additionally, this is consistent 
with the NSPS subpart HH, which does not apply to lime hydrators.

C. How Did We Determine Which Pollutants To Regulate?

    The proposed rule would reduce emissions of non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP by limiting emissions of PM from the kiln and 
cooler, and certain MPO emission units. Particulate matter is a 
surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP that are 
always a subset of PM. Controlling PM emissions will control the non-
volatile and semi-volatile metal HAP, since these compounds are 
associated with the PM, i.e., they are by definition in the particulate 
phase (as opposed to the gaseous form). The available air pollution 
controls for the particulate HAP metals at lime manufacturing plants 
are the PM controls used at lime manufacturing plants, i.e., FF, ESP, 
and wet scrubbers. These at-the-stack controls capture non-volatile and 
semi-volatile HAP metals non-preferentially along with other PM, thus 
showing why PM is a permissible indicator for these HAP metals. See 
National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 639. Also, using PM as a 
surrogate for the HAP metals would reduce the cost of emissions testing 
and monitoring that would be required to demonstrate compliance with 
the otherwise numerous standards that would apply to individual HAP 
metals. In addition, several other NESHAP have been promulgated which 
use PM as a surrogate for non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals for 
the same reason--it is a technically sound surrogate since HAP metals 
are necessarily contained in PM, are controlled by PM control devices 
to roughly the same efficiency, and there are significant associated 
cost savings due to monitoring for one parameter instead of many.
    The proposed rule would limit opacity or visible emissions from 
certain MPO emission units. Opacity serves as a surrogate for the non-
volatile and semi-volatile HAP metals. Opacity is indicative of PM 
emission levels and, thus, for the same reasons that PM is a surrogate 
for the particulate HAP metals, opacity would also be a surrogate for 
the PM HAP metals. Further, opacity levels are reduced by reducing PM 
emissions, which would also reduce the metal HAP in the particulate 
phase, i.e., the non-volatile and semi-volatile HAP.
    We are proposing not to regulate HCl emissions from lime kilns. 
Under the authority of section 112(d)(4) of the CAA, we have determined 
that no further control is necessary because HCl is a ``health 
threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from lime kilns are below 
the threshold value within an ample margin of safety. The following 
explains the statutory basis for considering health thresholds when 
establishing standards, and the basis for today's proposed decision, 
including a discussion of the risk assessment conducted to support the 
ample margin of safety decision.
    Section 112 of the CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory 
requirement to establish emission standards based on MACT. Of relevance 
here, section 112(d)(4) allows us to develop risk-based standards for 
HAP ``for which a health threshold has been established'' provided that 
the standards achieve an ``ample margin of safety.'' Therefore, we 
believe we have the discretion under section 112(d)(4) to develop 
standards which may be less stringent than the corresponding floor-
based MACT standards for some categories emitting threshold pollutants.
    In deciding standards for this source category, we seek to assure 
that emissions from every source in the category result in exposures 
less than the threshold level even for an individual exposed at the 
upper end of the exposure distribution. The upper end of the exposure 
distribution is calculated using the ``high end exposure estimate,'' 
defined as a plausible estimate of individual exposure for those 
persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution, conceptually 
above the 90th percentile, but not higher than the individual in the 
population who has the highest exposure. We believe that assuring 
protection to persons at the upper end of the exposure distribution is 
consistent with the ``ample margin of safety'' requirement in section 
112(d)(4).
    We emphasize that the use of section 112(d)(4) authority is wholly 
discretionary. As the legislative history indicates, cases may arise in 
which other considerations dictate that we should not invoke this 
authority to establish less stringent standards, despite the existence 
of a health effects threshold that is not jeopardized. For instance, we 
do not anticipate that we would set less stringent standards where 
evidence indicates a threat of significant or widespread environmental 
effects taking into consideration cost, energy safety and other 
relevant factors, although it may be shown that emissions from a 
particular source category do not approach or exceed a level requisite 
to protect public health with an ample margin of safety. We may also 
elect not to set less stringent standards where the estimated health 
threshold for a contaminant is subject to large uncertainty. Thus, in 
considering appropriate uses of our discretionary authority under 
section 112(d)(4), we consider other factors in addition to health 
thresholds, including uncertainty and potential ``adverse environmental 
effects,'' as that phrase is defined in section 112(a)(7) of the CAA.
    We are proposing in today's notice not to develop standards for HCl 
from lime kilns. This decision is based on the following. First, we 
consider HCl to be a threshold pollutant. Second, we have defined 
threshold values in the form of an Inhalation Reference Concentration 
(RfC) and acute exposure guideline level (AEGL). Third, HCl is emitted 
from lime kilns in quantities that result in human exposure in the 
ambient air at levels well below the threshold values with an ample 
margin of safety. Finally, there are no adverse environmental effects 
associated with HCl. The bases and supporting rationale for these 
conclusions are as follows.
    For the purposes of section 112(d)(4), several factors are 
considered in our decision on whether a pollutant should be categorized 
as a health threshold pollutant. These factors include evidence and 
classification of

[[Page 78055]]

carcinogenic risk and evidence of noncarcinogenic effects. For a 
detailed discussion of factors that we consider in deciding whether a 
pollutant should be categorized as a health threshold pollutant, please 
see the April 15, 1998 Federal Register document (63 FR 18766).
    In the April 15, 1998 action cited above, we determined that HCl, a 
Group D pollutant, is a health threshold pollutant for the purpose of 
section 112(d)(4) of the CAA (63 FR 18753).
    The NLA conducted a risk assessment to determine whether the 
emissions of HCl from lime kilns at the current baseline levels 
resulted in exposures below the threshold values for HCl. We reviewed 
the risk assessment report prepared by the NLA and believe that it uses 
a reasonable and conservative methodology, is consistent with EPA 
methodology and practice, and reaches a reasonable conclusion that 
current levels of HCl emissions from lime kilns would be well under the 
threshold level of concern for human receptors. The summary of the 
NLA's assessment is organized as follows: (1) Hazard identification and 
dose-response assessment, (2) emissions and release information, and 
(3) exposure assessment.
    It is important to note that the risk assessment methodology 
applied here by NLA should not be interpreted as a standardized 
approach that sets a precedent for how EPA will analyze application of 
section 112(d)(4) in other cases. The approach presented here, 
including assumptions and models, was selected to meet the unique needs 
of this particular case, to provide the appropriate level of detail and 
margin of safety given the data availability, chemicals, and emissions 
particular to this category.
    The RfC is a ``long-term'' threshold, defined as an estimate of a 
daily inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, would not likely 
result in the occurrence of significant noncancer health effects in 
humans. We have determined that the RfC for HCl of 20 micrograms per 
cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) is an appropriate threshold value for 
assessing risk to humans associated with exposure to HCl through 
inhalation (63 FR 18766, April 15, 1998). Therefore, the NLA used this 
RfC as the threshold value in their exposure assessment for HCl emitted 
from lime kilns.
    In addition to the effects of long-term inhalation of HCl, the NLA, 
at our request, also considered thresholds for short-term exposure to 
HCl in this assessment. The AEGL toxicity values are estimates of 
adverse health effects due to a single exposure lasting 8 hours or 
less. The confidence in the AEGL (a qualitative rating or either low, 
medium, or high) is based on the number of studies available and the 
quality of the data. Consensus toxicity values for effects of acute 
exposures have been developed by several different organizations, and 
we are beginning to develop such values. A national advisory committee 
organized by the EPA has developed AEGL for priority chemicals for 30-
minute, 1-hour, 4-hour, and 8-hour airborne exposures. They have also 
determined the levels of these chemicals at each exposure duration that 
will protect against discomfort (AEGL1), serious effects (AEGL2), and 
life-threatening effects or death (AEGL3). The NLA used the AEGL1 value 
as the threshold value for assessing the inhalation health effects of 
short-term exposures to HCl.
    The NLA conducted dispersion modeling for 71 lime plants and nearly 
200 lime kilns, representing all operating captive and commercial lime 
plants in the U.S. that would potentially be subject to the proposed 
rule. The analyses performed assumed worst case operating scenarios, 
such as maximum production rate and 24 hours per day, 365 days per year 
operation. Hydrogen chloride emission rates were based on either 
measured data or default HCl stack concentrations. For plants having 
HCl measurement data, only HCl data collected using FTIR were used. For 
plants where no emissions data were available, the following HCl 
emission levels were assumed for the analyses: 10 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv) for kilns with either scrubbers or preheaters, 18 ppmv 
for kilns at Riverton Corporation, 26 ppmv for gas-fired kilns, and 85 
ppmv for all other kilns. (The Riverton emission level was derived by 
multiplying its stack test results obtained using EPA Method 26 by a 
sampling method bias factor of 25. Method 26 may understate actual HCl 
emissions by a factor of between 2 and 25.) The HCl emission levels 
were converted to stack emission rates using the stack gas volumetric 
flow rate.
    The release characteristics used for the dispersion model included 
stack height, stack diameter, exit temperature, and exit velocity. 
Using its own questionnaire, the NLA collected the necessary release 
information from all 71 plants. The exposure assessment was conducted 
for HCl emissions from all lime plants in the source category. As 
discussed above, the emissions data and release characteristics were 
used as inputs to the assessment. The approach taken by NLA was found 
to be consistent with the EPA's tiered methodology. (See the U.S. EPA 
report ``Screening Procedures for Estimating the Air Quality Impact of 
Stationary Sources (revised)'', report number EPA-454/R-92-019 (1992).) 
The approach for each of the facilities involved four steps: Step 1 was 
the modeling of HCl concentrations at the point of maximum 
concentration, whether occurring on-site or off-site, using SCREEN3, a 
screening-level air dispersion model. Step 2 was the same as Step 1, 
but modeling was performed at or beyond the fence line. Step 3 was the 
same as Step 1, but modeling was performed at the nearest off-site 
residence or business location. Step 4 was the modeling of HCl 
concentrations at the nearest residence or business location using the 
ISC-PRIME model. (ISC-PRIME is a steady-state Gaussian plume model 
based on the ISC3 dispersion model, with the Plume RIse Model 
Enhancements (PRIME) algorithm added for improved treatment of building 
downwash. The model can account for settling and dry deposition; 
building downwash; area, line, and volume sources; plume rise as a 
function of downwind distance; building dimensions and stack placement 
relative to a building; separation of point sources; and limited 
terrain adjustment.) Note that each succeeding step involves more 
refined site-specific data and less conservative assumptions.
    The analyses performed under each of the above steps assumed worst 
case operating scenarios, such as maximum production rate, and in Steps 
1 through 3 worst case meteorology. Local terrain and building downwash 
effects were also considered, and meteorological data were taken from 
the nearest National Weather Service meteorological station. Maximum 
one hour averages were converted to annual averages using a conversion 
factor of 0.08, consistent with EPA recommendations.
    The NLA generated estimates of both chronic (annual average) and 
acute (one-hour) concentrations for comparison to the relevant health 
reference values or threshold levels. Acute and chronic exposures were 
compared to the AEGL1 of 2,700 [mu]g/m3 for one-hour 
exposures and the RfC of 20 [mu]g/m3 for long-term 
continuous exposure, respectively.
    Noncancer risk assessments typically use a metric called the Hazard 
Quotient (HQ) to assess risks of exposures to noncarcinogens. The HQ is 
the ratio of exposure (or modeled concentration) to the health 
reference value or threshold level (i.e., RfC or AEGL). HQ values less 
than ``1'' indicate that exposures are below the health reference value 
or threshold level and are likely to be

[[Page 78056]]

without appreciable risk of adverse effects in the exposed population. 
HQ values above ``1'' do not necessarily imply that adverse effects 
will occur, but that the potential for risk of such effects increases 
as HQ values exceed ``1.'' In addition, when information on background 
levels of pollutants is not available, EPA has in some cases considered 
a HQ of 0.2 or below to be acceptable.
    For the NLA assessment, if the HQ was found to be less than 0.5 for 
any of the first three steps using conservative defaults and modeling 
assumptions, the analysis concluded with that step. On the other hand, 
if the HQ exceeded 0.5, work proceeded to subsequent steps. There were 
no facilities where Step 4 (i.e., the most refined step) yielded an HQ 
above 0.5. (Steps 1, 2, and 3 are considered ``Tier 2'' analyses under 
EPA's tiered modeling approach, whereas Step 4 is considered a ``Tier 
3'' analysis.)
    To help confirm that NLA's approach was reasonable, we decided to 
reproduce several of NLA's modeling analyses by performing our own 
analyses for selected facilities having the highest potential for 
health risk to the surrounding community. Generally, these were 
facilities having the highest emission rates or facilities where Tier 3 
modeling was performed for actual off-site receptor locations. Fourteen 
kilns with emission rates greater than 5.0 grams/second were evaluated 
using the SCREEN3 air dispersion model. For the analyses, plant-
specific parameters were used for source type, emission rate, stack 
height, stack inner diameter exit velocity, gas exit temperature, and 
location (urban versus rural). Assumptions about flat terrain, 
meteorology, and building dimensions were made, as appropriate. For 
plants with multiple stacks, emissions were considered to emanate from 
one co-located emission point. Then, in order to maintain a 
conservative approach, the lowest effective stack height parameters 
were utilized for all emissions. The model was run, and maximum 
concentrations for distances ranging from 100 to 5,000 meters were 
obtained.
    To evaluate acute exposure, the HQ was determined by comparing the 
maximum concentrations to the HCl acute threshold level of 2,700 [mu]g/
m3. Maximum concentrations were then converted into annual 
concentrations, and the HQ was determined by comparing these 
concentrations to the HCl chronic health reference value of 20 [mu]g/
m3.
    We then used the Human Exposure Model (HEM) to examine seven of the 
kilns that were modeled by the NLA using ISC-PRIME. Concentrations were 
predicted at geographically-weighted centers of census blocks. 
Emissions were assumed to originate from a single stack using the 
lowest effective stack height reported at each facility. Six of the 
kilns modeled showed values well below the RfC, the highest having an 
HQ = 0.11. The seventh indicated an HQ of 0.96. The seventh kiln was 
re-simulated using site-specific emissions and stack data, resulting in 
an HQ = 0.21. Overall, we believe that the NLA has taken a reasonably 
conservative approach in estimating risk due to HCl exposure. This 
approach is consistent with the methodology and assumptions EPA would 
have used if the study had been done in-house, and in several instances 
NLA's approach is even more conservative. Furthermore, EPA conducted a 
parallel confirmatory analysis and found results consistent with those 
of the NLA assessment.
    At this point, it should be noted that the potential for effects 
depends on an individual's total exposure to that chemical. As a 
result, exposure from all sources, not just the one in question, must 
be evaluated. Where possible, other exposures must be accounted for, 
either explicitly through monitoring or modeling, or by apportioning a 
portion of the health threshold level available to any individual 
source. To estimate the potential exposure from other sources, the NLA 
reviewed the ambient HCl concentration estimates derived by the air 
component of EPA's Cumulative Exposure Project (CEP). They found that 
the mean national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of 0.06 and 
the 95th percentile national HCl concentration corresponded to an HQ of 
0.2, and they concluded that background HCl exposures were unlikely to 
exceed an HQ of 0.2. (These HQ helped confirm that the total HQ for a 
facility, including contributions from other sources (``background''), 
would not be expected to exceed ``1.'' However, these background HQ 
were not actually added into a facility's final HQ estimate.
    Thus, we are comfortable with NLA's calculations and feel confident 
that exposures to HCl emissions from the facilities in question are 
unlikely to ever exceed an HQ of 0.2. Therefore, we believe that the 
predicted exposures from these facilities should provide an ample 
margin of safety to ensure that total exposures for nearby residents 
should not exceed the short-term or long-term health based threshold 
levels or health reference values, even when considering the possible 
contributions of other sources of HCl or similar respiratory irritants.
    The standards for emissions must also protect against significant 
and widespread adverse environmental effects to wildlife, aquatic life, 
and other natural resources. The NLA did not conduct a formal 
ecological risk assessment. However, we have reviewed publications in 
the literature to determine if there would be reasonable expectation 
for serious or widespread adverse effects to natural resources.
    We consider the following aspects of pollutant exposure and 
effects: Toxicity effects from acute and chronic exposures to expected 
concentrations around the source (as measured or modeled), persistence 
in the environment, local and long-range transport, and tendency for 
bio-magnification with toxic effects manifest at higher trophic levels.
    No research has been identified for effects on terrestrial animal 
species beyond that cited in the development of the HCl RfC. Modeling 
calculations indicate that there is little likelihood of chronic or 
widespread exposure to HCl at concentrations above the threshold around 
lime manufacturing plants. Based on these considerations, we believe 
that the RfC can reasonably be expected to protect against widespread 
adverse effects in other animal species as well.
    Plants also respond to airborne HCl levels. Chronic exposure to 
about 600 [mu]g/m3 can be expected to result in discernible 
effects, depending on the plant species. Plants respond differently to 
HCl as an anhydrous gas than to HCl aerosols. Relative humidity is 
important in plant response; there appears to be a threshold of 
relative humidity above which plants will incur twice as much damage at 
a given dose. Effects include leaf injury and decrease in chlorophyll 
levels in various species given acute, 20-minute exposures of 6,500 to 
27,000 [mu]g/m\3\. A field study reports different sensitivity to 
damage of foliage in 50 species growing in the vicinity of an anhydrous 
aluminum chloride manufacturer. American elm, bur oak, eastern white 
pine, basswood, red ash and several bean species were observed to be 
most sensitive. Concentrations of HCl in the air were not reported. 
Chloride ion in whole leaves was 0.2 to 0.5 percent of dry weight; 
sensitive species showed damage at the lower value, but tolerant 
species displayed no injury at the higher value. Injury declined with 
distance from the source with no effects observed beyond 300 meters. 
Maximum modeled long-term HCl concentrations (less than 10 [mu]g/
m3) are well below the 600 [mu]g/m3 chronic 
threshold, and the maximum short-term HCl concentration (540 [mu]g/
m3) is far

[[Page 78057]]

below the 6,500 [mu]g/m3 acute exposure threshold. 
Therefore, no adverse exposure effects are anticipated.
    Prevailing meteorology strongly determines the fate of HCl in the 
atmosphere. However, HCl is not considered a strongly persistent 
pollutant, or one where long range transport is important in predicting 
its ecological effects. In the atmosphere, HCl can be expected to be 
absorbed into aqueous aerosols, due to its great affinity for water, 
and removed from the troposphere by rainfall. In addition, HCl will 
react with hydroxy ions to yield water plus chloride ions. However, the 
concentration of hydroxy ions in the troposphere is low, so HCl may 
have a relatively long residence time in areas of low humidity. No 
studies are reported of HCl levels in ponds or other small water bodies 
or soils near major sources of HCl emissions. Toxic effects of HCl to 
aquatic organisms would likely be due to the hydronium ion, or acidity. 
Aquatic organisms in their natural environments often exhibit a broad 
range of pH tolerance. Effects of HCl deposition to small water bodies 
and to soils will primarily depend on the extent of neutralizing by 
carbonates or other buffering compounds. Chloride ions are essentially 
ubiquitous in natural waters and soils so minor increases due to 
deposition of dissolved HCl will have much less effect than the 
deposited hydronium ions. Deleterious effects of HCl on ponds and 
soils, where such effects might be found near a major source emitting 
to the atmosphere, likely will be local rather than widespread, as 
observed in plant foliage.
    Effects of HCl on tissues are generally restricted to those 
immediately affected and are essentially acidic effects. The rapid 
solubility of HCl in aqueous media releases hydronium ions, which can 
be corrosive to tissue when above a threshold concentration. The 
chloride ions may be concentrated in some plant tissues, but may be 
distributed throughout the organism, as most organisms have chloride 
ions in their fluids. Leaves or other tissues exposed to HCl may show 
some concentration above that of their immediate environment; that is, 
some degree of bioconcentration can occur. However, long-term storage 
in specific organs and biomagnification of concentrations of HCl in 
trophic levels of a food chain would not be expected. Thus, the 
chemical nature of HCl results in deleterious effects, that when 
present, are local rather than widespread.
    In conclusion, acute and chronic exposures to expected HCl 
concentrations around the source are not expected to result in adverse 
toxicity effects. Hydrogen chloride is not persistent in the 
environment. Effects of HCl on ponds and soils are likely to be local 
rather than widespread. Finally, HCl is not believed to result in 
biomagnification or bioaccumulation in the environment. Therefore, we 
do not anticipate any adverse ecological effects from HCl.
    The results of the exposure assessment showed that exposure levels 
to baseline HCl emissions from lime production facilities are well 
below the health threshold value. Additionally, the threshold values, 
for which the RfC and AEGL values were determined to be appropriate 
values, were not exceeded when considering conservative estimates of 
exposure resulting from lime kiln emissions as well as considering 
background exposures to HCl and therefore, represent an ample margin of 
safety. Furthermore, no significant or widespread adverse environmental 
effects from HCl is anticipated. Therefore, under authority of section 
112(d)(4), we have determined that further control of HCl emissions 
from lime manufacturing plants is not necessary.
    We considered establishing a limit for mercury emissions from lime 
kilns, but there is no MACT floor for mercury--that is, we know of no 
way to establish an achievable floor standard for mercury beyond 
selecting an arbitrarily high emission limit that any source could 
achieve under any circumstance since no source controls mercury 
emissions using a means of control that can be duplicated by other 
sources. We also have initially determined that an emission limit for 
mercury based on a beyond-the-MACT-floor option is not considered cost 
effective at this time; nor is a beyond-the-floor standard justified 
for mercury after otherwise taking into account cost, non-air quality 
environmental and health impacts, and energy considerations.

D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at Existing 
Lime Manufacturing Plants?

1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler
    In establishing the MACT floor, section 112(d)(3)(A) of the CAA 
directs us to set standards for existing sources that are no less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved in practice by 
the best performing 12 percent of existing sources (for which there are 
emissions data) where there are more than 30 sources in the category or 
subcategory. Among the possible meanings for the word ``average'' as 
the term is used in the CAA, we considered two of the most common. 
First, ``average'' could be interpreted as the arithmetic mean. The 
arithmetic mean of a set of measurements is the sum of the measurements 
divided by the number of measurements in the set. The word ``average'' 
could also be interpreted as the median of the emission limitation 
values. The median is the value in a set of measurements below and 
above which there are an equal number of values (when the measurements 
are arranged in order of magnitude). This approach identifies the 
emission limitation achieved by those sources within the top 12 
percent, arranges those emissions limitations achieved in order of 
magnitude, and the control level achieved by, and achievable by, the 
median source is selected. Either of these two approaches could be used 
in developing MACT standards for different source categories.
    We obtained PM data for 47 lime kilns over the course of developing 
the proposed rule. The most comprehensive body of data, and we believe 
the one that most accurately approximates the performance achieved by, 
and achievable by, the average of the best 12 percent of existing 
sources for which the Agency has emission data, are PM limitations 
contained in State and local agency permits for these sources. We used 
the permit limitations for the kilns (along with the supporting PM 
emissions data) in our MACT floor analysis because the permit 
limitations were indicative of the variability in the long-term 
performance of the emission controls. We examined multiple sets of PM 
emissions data obtained from the individual kilns during compliance 
testing to assure that the permit limitations do not underestimate the 
pollution control capabilities of these sources (i.e., that actual 
performance is not superior to the permit limits, in which case the 
MACT floor would need to be based on that superior performance; see 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 661-62 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).
    Simply taking the average or mean of the lowest 12 percent of the 
emissions data (without considering permit limitations, i.e., 
achievability of the technology over the long-term) would not account 
for the inherent variability of performance of well-designed and 
operated emission controls, since individual emissions tests are based 
on short durations of sampling, typically 3 hour tests (because of the 
absence of PM continuous emissions monitors) and, thus, we would be 
required to extrapolate these ``snapshot'' data to ascertain long-term 
achievable performance. Additionally, we obtained multiple compliance 
test data for the

[[Page 78058]]

top performing kilns (where available); some of the kilns' data vary 
over two orders of magnitude and vary up to their permit limit. 
Further, these multiple data sets indicate that some of these top 
performing kilns would not be able to meet an emission limit based on a 
strictly arithmetic average of the top performing kilns' emissions data 
(the result being a standard not achieved by the average of the best 
performing sources, and hence impermissible).
    We arrayed the data by permit limitation, from lowest to highest, 
in units of lbs PM/ton of limestone feed, along with the associated PM 
emissions test data. The best performing 12 percent of the 47 kilns are 
the best performing six kilns, with the third and fourth best 
performing kilns being the median. The six best performing kilns' 
permit limits for PM are 0.10, 0.12, 0.12, 0.12, 0.21, and 0.21 lb/ton 
limestone feed and are equipped with either a FF or ESP. The emission 
test data associated with these kilns indicate that these kilns have 
indeed achieved the limits in their State permits. The test data for 
the kilns permitted at or below 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone vary from 
0.0091 to 0.0925 lb PM/ton limestone. We do not believe that these 
kilns could consistently achieve standards which are lower than the 
permit limitation of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone level, due to the 
probable long-term variability. Therefore, we are proposing a MACT 
floor PM emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone for lime kilns at 
existing lime plants, using the median approach of the permit limits, 
which the associated emissions data show to be achievable and show as 
well to be a reasonable approximation of the achievable performance of 
the average of the best performing 12 percent of kilns for which we 
have emissions data, taking into consideration long-term variability in 
performance.
    Most lime coolers (approximately 96 percent) in the lime 
manufacturing industry use ambient air for cooling and are integrated 
with the kiln such that all the cooler exhaust goes directly to the 
kiln for use as combustion air, or else the cooling of the lime takes 
place within the kiln itself (e.g., in vertical kilns). Thus, for 96 
percent of the lime kilns, their emissions are actually the kiln and 
cooler emissions combined. The kiln PM emission limit of 0.12 lb/ton 
limestone is based on kiln permit limits and associated emissions data 
where the kiln and cooler emissions are combined. That is, based on our 
review of the questionnaire responses, discussions with plant 
personnel, and State permit information, none of the best performing 
kilns has a lime cooler with a separate exhaust to the atmosphere. 
Thus, the kiln PM emission limit applies to the emissions from both the 
kiln and cooler. For the 96 percent of the kilns with no separate 
cooler exhaust, this would have no effect; that is, the coolers' 
emissions are already combined with the kiln prior to venting to the 
atmosphere. For the few kilns with grate coolers that separately vent a 
portion of the cooler exhaust to the atmosphere, the sum of the 
emissions from the kiln(s) and the grate cooler exhaust(s) at the 
existing lime manufacturing plant would be subject to the kiln and 
cooler emission limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone feed. With this 
approach, the emissions from the kiln and cooler are subject to one 
emission limit, regardless of whether the kiln and cooler emissions are 
combined prior to release to the atmosphere. This reflects the 
performance achieved by, and achievable by (taking operating 
variability into account), the median of the 12 percent best performing 
kilns for which the Agency has emissions data. Further, since we have 
defined the affected source to include all kilns and coolers at a lime 
manufacturing plant, the kiln and cooler PM emission limit applies to 
the combined emissions of PM from all of the kilns and coolers at the 
existing lime manufacturing plant.
    During the review of a draft of this proposal by the Small Business 
Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, an issue was raised about the potential 
for increases in sulfur dioxide (SO2) and HCl emissions that 
may occur if sources opt to remove existing PM wet scrubbers and 
replace them with dry PM control devices (such as FF or ESP) in order 
to meet the proposed kiln PM standard. About 20 percent of the lime 
produced in the U.S. is from kilns equipped with wet scrubbers, and 
about 90 percent of the wet scrubbers on lime kilns at major source 
lime plants would not meet the proposed PM limit. And although the 
proposed rule would not dictate how the lime kiln PM standard would 
have to be met, and our limited information indicates that one or two 
lime kilns with wet scrubbers may already meet the proposed PM standard 
(this may be because they burn natural gas as their primary fuel 
source), some sources may elect to upgrade their existing wet scrubber 
with a new venturi wet scrubber to meet the PM standard, while other 
existing sources that would not meet the proposed PM emission limit 
with a wet scrubber may opt to replace the wet scrubber with a FF. But 
because wet scrubbers are more effective than a FF or ESP at removing 
SO2 (and HCl), the SBAR Panel was concerned that the latter 
approach would result in increases in SO2 emissions from 
these kilns. Therefore, we request comment on establishing a 
subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl 
emissions and other negative environmental impacts (discussed further 
below) that may result in complying with the proposed PM standard. We 
note, however, that the risk analysis showed that HCl levels emitted 
from lime kilns (including the increased HCl levels from kilns with wet 
scrubbers that are replaced with FF) are below the threshold value 
within an ample margin of safety.
    Although subcategorization normally is based on differences in 
manufacturing process, emission characteristics, or technical 
feasibility, and is not justified by the sole fact that a different 
type of air pollution control equipment is utilized, EPA solicits 
comment on the possibility of establishing a subcategory for existing 
lime kilns using wet scrubbers in order to avoid potentially 
environmentally counterproductive effects due to increased emissions of 
acid gases and increased water and energy use. (Such a subcategory 
would also significantly reduce the cost impact on industry.) In 
addition, we request comment on what the MACT floor PM limit would be 
for this possible subcategory. If we based the MACT floor for this 
possible subcategory on an inspection of the permit limit information 
available to us, we would initially conclude that a PM emission limit 
of 0.6 lb PM/ton limestone feed may be appropriate. We note, however, 
that in order to use permit limits as a basis for a MACT floor 
determination, those permit limits must accurately reflect the actual 
performance of the sources used as the basis for the MACT floor 
determination (considering both emission levels and operating 
variability when designed and operated properly). We, therefore, 
solicit information both on PM permit limits for wet scrubber equipped 
kilns and on the actual emissions from those kilns. Lastly, at the 
recommendation of the SBAR Panel, we specifically request comment on 
any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial 
constraints that would preclude installation of a FF or ESP at an 
existing lime manufacturing plant.
    We note, however, that following the SBAR panel, the NLA brought to 
our attention the fact that if sources replace their wet scrubbers with 
FF to comply with the kiln PM standard, they would most likely also 
need to take steps to cool the exhaust gas stream entering the FF, 
since the operating temperature of a FF may be 400[deg] less than a wet 
scrubber.

[[Page 78059]]

Cooling the gas stream as such may be done using various techniques, 
all with varying environmental and cost impacts. In light of this new 
information presented by NLA, we analyzed the costs of three PM control 
options available to sources with wet scrubbers that do not currently 
meet the proposed PM limit. Sources could elect to replace the existing 
wet scrubber with a new FF and cool the entering exhaust gas stream 
using either a water spray system or alternatively a kiln preheater. Or 
sources may elect to replace the existing wet scrubber with a new 
venturi wet scrubber and thereby avoid the need for gas stream cooling. 
Based on our review of the technical performance of venturi scrubbers, 
we believe that a new, high efficiency venturi wet scrubber with a gas 
stream pressure drop of 35 inches water guage or more could meet the 
proposed lime kiln PM emission limit.
    After reviewing the cost impacts of these control options, we chose 
the venturi wet scrubber as the basis for estimating the proposed 
rule's impacts (for kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed 
PM limit) because, in general, this option was the least expensive in 
terms of capital cost and, in some cases, annual cost as well. We 
request comment on our cost analyses of these control options (the 
details of which may be found in the docket) and on our determination 
to base the impacts estimates of the proposed rule on this venturi 
scrubber control option. We also acknowledge that the NLA's cost 
estimates lead them to conclude that it may be less expensive for 
sources to install a FF with gas stream cooling rather than install new 
venturi wet scrubbers.
    In addition, there would be different emission and environmental 
impacts depending on the control option selected by sources with 
existing wet scrubbers not meeting the proposed PM limit. For the 
control option of a wet scrubber being replaced with a new FF, we 
estimate that national HCl emissions would increase by about 1,000 
tons/yr, and national SO2 emissions would increase by about 
15,000 tons/yr. The NLA commented during the SBAR Panel that the 
resulting SO2 increases under this option could cause a lime 
plant to become subject to new source review (NSR) rule requirements, 
and the source would, thus, incur additional costs associated with this 
review. Sources utilizing this control option may or may not be 
excluded from NSR if it is a pollution control project. Under the 
current NSR rules and guidance, a net emissions increase of 40 tons/yr 
SO2 would trigger NSR even if this increase was due to a 
pollution control project, unless the control project qualified for a 
Pollution Control Project Exclusion. The EPA is currently revising the 
NSR rules. Finally, no change in SO2 or HCl emissions would 
be expected for sources that replace existing wet scrubbers with new 
venturi wet scrubbers. With no resultant SO2 emissions 
increases, it would be unlikely that sources would seek an NSR 
exclusion.
    We also acknowledge there would be additional negative 
environmental impacts if all kilns with wet scrubbers not meeting the 
proposed PM limit are replaced with new venturi wet scrubbers. These 
impacts would include an increase in national water consumption by 
about 4.2 billion gallons per year from current levels, and an increase 
in electricity consumption by about 7.2 million kilowatt-hours/yr. 
(Industry estimates that along with this additional electricity 
consumption, an additional 8,000 tons/yr of carbon dioxide would be 
emitted from fossil fuel fired electrical power generating stations.) 
These increases result from the new venturi wet scrubbers requiring a 
higher water flow rate and larger fans to handle the increased gas 
pressure drop. We note, however, that with a higher PM limit for a 
possible wet scrubber subcategory, national PM emissions from lime 
kilns would be approximately 1,000 tons/yr greater than if there were 
no subcategory.
2. Mercury From the Kiln
    Mercury emitted from lime kilns originates from the raw materials 
and fuels fed to the kiln. In considering a potential floor for mercury 
from these emission units, we considered both at-the-stack controls and 
substitution of feed and fuels as a potential basis for a standard. 
Since no sources are controlling the mercury emissions from their lime 
kilns using at-the-stack controls, such control cannot be the basis for 
a floor standard.
    Switching of raw material feed or fuel is also not a basis for 
establishing a floor standard because these means of control are not 
available, leading to unachievable standards. Nor is there any 
indication that feed or fuel substitution would control mercury 
emissions from these sources. The reasons for these conclusions are set 
out below.
    Substitution of raw materials, i.e., feedstock substitution, is not 
an available means of control. First, raw materials are proprietary. No 
kiln can use another's raw materials. Thus, a standard based on feed 
control is not achievable because it is not even available. No second 
kiln could duplicate a ``low mercury'' source's performance, even 
assuming there was a low mercury source of feed material. In addition, 
we are aware of no data or information indicating that a certain type 
of limestone or source of limestone has a lower concentration of 
mercury, and although such deposits may exist, we do not believe such 
deposits of limestone exist sufficiently throughout the U.S. to supply 
the industry. Further, assuming there was a widespread source of 
limestone with a lower level of mercury (which is highly unlikely), it 
is unclear that this would lead to lower mercury emissions (or what the 
reductions of mercury emissions would be), since mercury emissions from 
lime kilns also originate from the fuel.
    A floor standard based on substitution of so-called clean mercury 
fossil fuels is likewise not achievable due to unavailability of this 
means of control. The floor for existing sources would have to be based 
on either coal or natural gas substitution since there are enough 
sources using coal or natural gas to constitute a MACT floor for 
existing kilns. However, there are simply inadequate amounts of ``low 
mercury'' coal and natural gas available to power this industry. Thus, 
we see no feasible way for the lime industry to function if it can only 
use the 6 percent ``cleanest'' fuels to make its product. See H.R. Rep. 
No. 101-490, 101st Cong. 2d sess. 328 (``MACT is not intended * * * to 
drive sources to the brink of shutdown'').
    Nor do we see any evidence that ``low mercury'' coal exists. Our 
analysis shows that the average mercury levels for the various coal 
types--bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coals--are nearly the 
same at around 0.1 part per million by weight. These data show that 
there is not a certain type of coal that has a lower mercury level.
    Also, based on the data in the EPA Utility Study and Report to 
Congress, emissions of other HAP metals would or could increase if coal 
or oil were to be substituted to try and achieve lower mercury 
emissions. These data indicate that levels of HAP metals in coal are so 
variable that decreases in emissions of one HAP metal are offset by 
increases in others when different coals are used as fuel. These data 
also show that if fuel oil is substituted for coal, nickel emissions 
will increase because fuel oil typically contains more nickel than 
coal. Thus, based on these data, we believe that fuel switching among 
coal and oil is not an effective means of controlling HAP metal 
emissions (including mercury), even if this were an available means of 
control.
    For new as well as existing kilns, we considered basing the floor 
for mercury

[[Page 78060]]

on the use of natural gas, although the few mercury emissions data we 
have cannot allow us to definitively state what effect fuel type has on 
emissions. However, we do not regard natural gas fuel substitution as 
an available technology for new sources. Natural gas is not readily 
available throughout the U.S., i.e., the infrastructure for its 
delivery (pipelines, pumping stations, etc.) is not available for all 
locations where lime manufacturing plants exist and is not expected to 
be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the 
U.S. Although U.S. natural gas reserves may be considered plentiful, 
the gas still needs to be extracted through drilling and the 
construction of wells. Thus, for plants located far from a natural gas 
pipeline, natural gas is not a reasonable alternative. Additionally, 
although the infrastructure (pipelines, wells, storage facilities) can 
be built, the delivery capacity will likely not be available to 
accommodate a fuel switch to natural gas within the time frame by which 
new kilns would have to comply.
    We note further that the amounts of mercury emitted by these kilns 
is small, roughly one pound per plant per year. Although the floor 
provisions of the CAA do not provide a de minimis exception to 
establishing floors, see National Lime v. EPA, 233 F. 3d at 640, the 
small amounts of mercury emitted reinforce the Agency's technical 
determinations that control via substitutions of feed or fuel are 
neither feasible nor likely to be effective since random variability in 
these feed and fuels will likely result in equal amounts of mercury 
being emitted in any case. Indeed, it is the Agency's view that not 
even a single source could reliably duplicate its own performance for 
mercury due to the small amounts emitted and the random variability of 
fuels and feed.
3. PM and Opacity From MPO
    There are numerous types of MPO such as grinding mills, storage 
bins, conveying systems (such as bucket elevators and belt conveyors), 
transfer points, and screening operations at each lime manufacturing 
plant. We investigated whether there were any MPO subject to standards 
more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO, or otherwise performing with 
consistently lower emissions than required by the NSPS (i.e., 
performing at a lower level without being subject to a regulatory 
limit), that would serve as a basis for a MACT floor. To this end, we 
reviewed the applicable requirements for lime manufacturing plants 
located in nonattainment areas for PM10 (particulate matter with an 
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns), since 
presumably these areas of the U.S. would be the most likely to have 
more stringent PM emission limitations. We found seven lime 
manufacturing plants located in PM10 nonattainment areas. The 
information available to us on these plants indicated that no MPO were 
subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or 
otherwise performing better. We believe that the NSPS subpart OOO 
standards reasonably reflect the level of performance achieved by, and 
achievable by, the average of the best performing 12 percent of 
sources.
    The basis for the MACT floor for these emission units is the NSPS 
subpart OOO as it has been applied to lime manufacturing plants, which 
serves as a reasonable measure of the performance of the average of the 
best performing sources. The NSPS subpart OOO sets PM, opacity, and 
visible emission limits for limestone MPO that were constructed, 
reconstructed, or modified after August 31, 1983. We investigated 
whether enough of these MPO are located at lime manufacturing plants 
subject to the NSPS subpart OOO to make a MACT floor determination. 
Using the median approach to determining MACT floors, at least 6 
percent would need to be subject to the NSPS subpart OOO.
    In one approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime 
manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, we 
estimate that there are 104 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S., and 
that at least seven of these were built after August 31, 1983. All of 
the MPO associated with these new, greenfield lime manufacturing plants 
that were built after August 31, 1983, would be subject to the NSPS 
subpart OOO. Therefore, at least 6.7 percent (7/104) of the MPO are 
subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, enough for the NSPS subpart OOO to 
serve as a basis for the MACT floor.
    In another approach to estimating the percentage of lime 
manufacturing plant MPO that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, our 
information shows that at least 31 lime kilns were constructed after 
August 31, 1983, out of a total of about 257 lime kilns in the U.S. 
Assuming that the MPO associated with these new lime kilns are also 
new, we estimate that 12.1 percent (31/257) of the MPO are subject to 
the NSPS subpart OOO.
    Thus, with either approach to estimating the number of MPO at lime 
manufacturing plants that are subject to the NSPS subpart OOO, there 
are enough to support a MACT floor determination. Therefore, the MACT 
floor for MPO is equivalent to the NSPS subpart OOO.

E. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Emission Units at New Lime 
Manufacturing Plants?

    The CAA requires the MACT floor for new sources to be based on the 
degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source.
    For HAP metals emissions from MPO at new lime manufacturing plants, 
the floor is the NSPS subpart OOO (the same as for MPO at existing lime 
manufacturing plants). As discussed previously, we investigated whether 
there were any MPO subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS 
subpart OOO, or were emitting at lower rates without being subject to 
some type of regulatory standards, that would serve as a basis for MACT 
for new sources. The information available to us indicates that no MPO 
are subject to standards more stringent than the NSPS subpart OOO or 
otherwise performing better. Therefore, the floor is the NSPS subpart 
OOO.
    For HAP metals emissions from kilns and coolers, the floor for 
those at new lime manufacturing plants is defined by the permit limits 
and emissions data for PM, where PM is a surrogate for non-mercury HAP 
metals. As previously described in this preamble, the MACT floor PM 
emission limit for lime kilns and coolers at existing lime 
manufacturing plants would be 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone. This 
determination was based on the median approach, i.e., on the third best 
kiln permit limit of 0.12 lb PM/ton limestone. For kilns at new lime 
manufacturing plants, MACT is based on the best controlled similar 
source, which is the kiln permitted at the lowest emission limit (i.e., 
0.10 lb PM/ton limestone). Test data for this kiln indicated that the 
emission level was 0.0925 lb PM/ton, demonstrating that this permit 
limit is indeed achievable, and that the permit level reasonably 
approximates the level of performance that is consistently achievable 
by this kiln (so that a lower floor level would not be technically 
justified). Therefore, the emission limit for kilns and coolers at a 
new lime manufacturing plant is 0.10 lb/ton stone feed. As with the 
existing sources, this emission limit applies to the combined emissions 
from all of the kilns and coolers at a new lime manufacturing plant.
    As previously described and for the same reasons that there is no 
MACT floor for mercury for kilns at existing lime manufacturing plants, 
and the

[[Page 78061]]

beyond-the-MACT-floor options considered for kilns at existing lime 
manufacturing plants are not justified, there is no MACT for mercury 
for kilns at new sources.

F. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?

    Raw material feed or fuel switching may be considered potential 
beyond-the-floor options for mercury, but as previously stated, no data 
or information is available indicating that a certain type of limestone 
or source of limestone has a lower concentration of mercury or is 
generally available throughout the country. In addition, even if 
deposits of limestone with low levels of mercury were to be found, it 
is unlikely that the limestone would be in close proximity to the 
majority of lime manufacturing plants in the U.S. and, thus, the cost 
of transporting the limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be 
prohibitively expensive. (There would also be increased energy use 
associated with this option in the form of increased fuel use to 
transport raw materials.) Most, if not all, lime manufacturing plants 
are sited and located adjacent to or in close proximity to their source 
of limestone (usually a quarry or mine) to avoid the high cost of 
transporting the material.
    Regarding fuel switching as a possible mercury MACT floor or 
beyond-the-MACT-floor option for existing or new kilns, using a fuel 
with a lower level of mercury, such as natural gas (instead of coal), 
may result in lower lime kiln mercury emissions. However, there are no 
data available to quantify what the emissions reductions would be since 
our analysis indicates that most mercury emissions originate from the 
limestone feed material (compared with coal), and so the emissions 
reductions that would be achieved via switching from coal to natural 
gas are uncertain.
    Further, as explained above, natural gas is not readily available 
throughout the U.S. (i.e., the infrastructure for its delivery 
(pipelines, pumping stations, etc.)), is not available for all 
locations where lime manufacturing plants exist, and is not expected to 
be economically available to build such infrastructure throughout the 
U.S.
    We considered another beyond-the-MACT-floor option based on 
activated carbon injection--a mercury control technology currently used 
on various types of waste combustors. However, based on the already 
relatively low levels of mercury emissions from lime kilns, we expect 
that relatively low emissions reductions would be achieved from this 
technology. (Use of activated carbon injection also generates a 
mercury-bearing waste stream to be disposed of.) The few mercury 
emissions data available (four data points) range from 0.7 to 2.5 
micrograms/dry standard cubic meter (referenced to 7 percent oxygen). 
These uncontrolled levels are 10 to 100 times lower than the mercury 
emission standards established for various types of waste combustors 
and translate to an average annual emission rate of approximately 1 lb/
year per lime kiln. Thus, this beyond-the-floor-control option would 
not be cost-effective because of the low emissions reductions expected 
and the high cost of control. Further, use of activated carbon 
generates an additional waste to be disposed of, and there are 
increases in energy use associated with the technology. After 
considering cost, energy, and non-air human health and environmental 
impacts, our initial conclusion is that basing beyond-the-floor 
standards for mercury on use of activated carbon is not warranted.
    For HAP metal (PM) emissions from the kiln and MPO, no technologies 
were identified that would perform better than the technologies 
representative of the MACT floors that were determined.
    Raw material feed or fuel switching is not a beyond-the-MACT-floor 
option for PM control from lime kilns, for reasons similar as to why it 
is not an option for mercury control. Regarding feed material 
switching, no data or information is available indicating that using a 
certain type or source of limestone would have a lower HAP metals 
content or would lead to reduced PM emissions. We do not believe that 
such deposits of limestone exist or that use of a certain type of 
limestone would consistently result in lower PM or metals emissions. 
Further, assuming there was a widespread source of limestone with a 
lower HAP metals content (which is highly unlikely), it is unclear that 
this would lead to lower HAP metals emissions (or what the reductions 
of the HAP metals emissions would be) since HAP metals emissions from 
lime kilns would also originate from the fuel. In addition, even if 
deposits of limestone with low levels of HAP metals or a lower PM-
producing limestone were to be found, the cost of transporting the 
limestone to lime manufacturing plants would be prohibitively 
expensive. In addition, as noted earlier, there would be increased 
energy usage associated with the transport of large amounts of raw 
materials.
    Regarding fuel switching as a possible beyond-the-MACT-floor option 
for HAP metals, using a fuel with a lower level of metals, such a 
natural gas (compared to coal), may result in lower lime kiln metals 
emissions. However, there are insufficient data available to quantify 
what the emissions reductions would be, since as we described above, 
lime kiln metals emissions also originate from the limestone feed 
material. Further, natural gas is not readily available throughout the 
U.S. (i.e., the infrastructure for its delivery (pipelines, pumping 
stations, etc.)) and may not be available for all locations where lime 
manufacturing plants exist. Further, the cost of using natural gas may 
be prohibitively expensive as the cost of natural gas continues to rise 
as the growing demand for it rises as well. We do not regard this as an 
available means of control for this source category. See also the 
discussion above as to why the use of natural gas is not a viable 
control option for mercury; this rationale also applies to the use of 
natural gas as a beyond-the-floor option for PM and non-mercury HAP 
metals. Consequently, we are not proposing any beyond-the-floor 
standard for HAP metal control based on requiring the use of natural 
gas rather than other fossil fuels.
    Therefore, the Agency is proposing that the floor standard for 
mercury reflect no existing reduction and after considering the factors 
set out in CAA section 112 (d)(2), that no beyond-the-floor 
alternatives are achievable.

G. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?

    The formats selected for the proposed emission limits vary 
according to the emission source, pollutant, and the MACT basis for the 
limits. The formats selected include a production-based emission limit, 
pollutant concentration limits, and opacity limits.
    For the kiln PM standard, the ``lb PM/ton limestone'' format was 
selected to be consistent with the NSPS for lime manufacturing plants, 
40 CFR 60, subpart HH. This format also encourages kiln energy 
efficiency. A more energy efficient kiln emits less exhaust gas per ton 
of limestone processed, which results in a higher gas concentration of 
PM compared to a less energy efficient kiln for the same amount of lime 
produced and PM emitted. A concentration format (e.g., grains PM/dry 
standard cubic foot) would penalize more energy efficient kilns.
    For the PM and opacity standards for MPO, a concentration format 
for PM and the opacity limit requirements were selected to be 
consistent with the NSPS for nonmetallic minerals processing, 40 CFR 
part 60, subpart OOO.

[[Page 78062]]

H. How Did We Select the Test Methods and Monitoring Requirements for 
Determining Compliance With the Proposed Rule?

1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler
    Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct a PM performance 
test and concurrently measure the stone feed rate to the kiln during 
the test. If you operate a lime cooler associated with the kiln being 
tested that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would be 
required to conduct a Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-3) test on 
the cooler's exhaust concurrently with the kiln Method 5 test. Method 5 
is the long-standing EPA method for measuring PM emissions from 
stationary sources.
    For each kiln with an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP operating 
parameters in lieu of using a PM detector or a COMS, you would be 
required to collect and record the input voltage and current to each 
electrical field of the ESP during the PM performance test, and then 
determine the 3-hour operating limit for each parameter for each 
electrical field based on these data. We expect that most lime 
manufacturing plants with ESP already monitor the electrical current 
and voltage, which provides an indication of the ESP performance and 
consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance 
demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3-hour rolling 
average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP 
greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each 
field of the ESP as established during the performance test. You would 
be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. A 
3-hour rolling average was selected to be consistent with the usual 3-
hour time required for the PM test (three test runs of at least 1 
hour).
    You would also have the option of monitoring PM emissions from an 
ESP with a PM detector, in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters. Sources 
may determine that this would allow them greater operational 
flexibility. These devices would be similar to the BLDS for FF, which 
are discussed below, but they are based on light scattering technology 
(and not the triboelectric technology).
    For each kiln with a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect 
and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and 
the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test, and then 
establish the 3-hour operating limit for each of these parameters based 
on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate are the scrubber operating 
parameters most often monitored and provide an indication of the 
scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For 
continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain 
the 3-hour rolling average pressure drop and flow rate greater than or 
equal to the operating limit established for these parameters during 
the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the 
data as previously described.
    For kilns and lime coolers (if the cooler has a separate exhaust to 
the atmosphere) controlled by a FF, if you choose not to use a COMS, 
you would be required to install a BLDS. These systems are usually 
based on either triboelectric, electrodynamic, or light scattering 
technology and provide an indication of relative changes in particle 
mass loading. Leaks in filter bags or similar failures can be detected 
early enough to warn if additional inspection and preventative 
maintenance are needed to avoid major FF failures and excessive 
emissions. When the system detects an increase in relative PM emissions 
greater than a preset level, an alarm sounds automatically. The FF 
would be required to then be inspected to determine if corrective 
action is necessary. We believe that the monitoring of PM via BLDS is 
more appropriate, i.e., a better technique, than monitoring FF 
operating parameters such as pressure drop. Some other MACT standards 
require the use of these types of monitors.
    It should be noted that BLDS would also be required on positive 
pressure FF, which typically have multiple stacks. We specifically seek 
comment on the feasibility, practicality, and cost of using BLDS for 
these types of FF; and on alternative monitoring options for positive 
pressure FF that will provide a continuous indication of a kiln or 
cooler's compliance status with regard to PM. We also seek comment on 
whether EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 (manual observation 
of opacity) should be allowed in lieu of BLDS for positive pressure FF.
    We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM 
continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) as a method to assure 
continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits for lime 
kilns and coolers. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the cost 
of PM CEMS, and the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM 
emission limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and 
averaging time of a CEMS-based PM emission limit, the methodology for 
deriving the limit from the available data for lime kilns, and any 
additional emissions reductions that could be expected as a result of 
using a PM CEMS.
    We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance 
of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and 
through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is 
sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on lime kilns. See the 
revisions we made to the performance specification for PM CEMS 
(Performance Specification 11 (PS-11), 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and 
Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) at 66 FR 64176, December 12, 
2001.
    During the review of a draft of the proposed rule by the SBAR 
Panel, small entity representatives and some Panel members requested 
that we consider allowing COMS in lieu of requiring BLDS and other 
monitoring requirements for PM. The proposed rule would allow the use 
of COMS as an alternative to BLDS, PM detectors, or the monitoring of 
ESP operating parameters. However, we request summary data on lime kiln 
opacity levels measured with a COMS, and we request information on the 
applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of using COMS and BLDS 
(such as each method's sensitivity or lack of sensitivity, availability 
and quality of promulgated or approved specifications and procedures to 
verify initial performance, potential interferences or other quality 
assurance problems, inapplicability to certain APCD designs or 
configurations, cost, and precision and accuracy relative to the 
operating system to be monitored and the standards to be proposed).
    The proposed rule would allow sources with FF or ESP to comply with 
a 15 percent opacity operating limit, as an alternative to using a 
BLDS, a PM detector, or the use of ESP operating parameters. We request 
comment on using a COMS to monitor opacity as an emission limit (which 
would act as a surrogate for HAP metals emissions), rather than as an 
operating limit, and what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit would 
be. The range of opacity levels under consideration as the MACT floor 
opacity limit for lime kilns would be between 10 and 15 percent. 
Sensitivity for COMS is dependent on the path length that the light 
beam measures; the longer the path length, the more sensitive the 
measurement. Performance Specification 1 (PS-1), 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix B, gives the performance criteria for COMS used to measure 
opacity for opacity limitation standards

[[Page 78063]]

but we recognize that there are potential measurement errors associated 
with monitoring opacity in stacks, especially for emission units 
subject to opacity limits less than 10 percent. The uncertainties in 
measurement accuracy result from the following: (1) The unavailability 
of calibration attenuators for opacity levels below 6 percent; (2) the 
error associated with the calibration error allowances, the zero and 
upscale drift specifications, the mandatory drift adjustment levels, 
and the imprecision associated with the allowed compensation for dirt 
accumulation; and (3) the minimum full scale range of 80 percent 
required of COMS in PS-1. Because of these aforementioned limitations, 
COMS are generally considered good ``catastrophic'' control equipment 
indicators using opacity generally above levels greater than 10 percent 
opacity.
    A 15 percent opacity level is the opacity limit under the NSPS for 
lime kilns (40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) and based on a preliminary 
analysis, may also be the median opacity permit limit for the six top 
performing lime kilns. In addition, the NLA provided information 
indicating that the opacity level of one of the top performing lime 
kilns (in terms of PM emissions and permit limit) often varies between 
10 and 15 percent. Finally, we acknowledge that other MACT standards, 
such as the Petroleum Refinery MACT (67 FR 17761) and the Secondary 
Aluminum MACT (65 FR 15690), have allowed the use of COMS. In the 
Petroleum Refinery MACT, the rule allows sources the option to comply 
with the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart J) emission limitations (which 
includes various opacity limits for certain emission units) in order to 
comply with the MACT standard.
    Another approach to using a COMS that was raised by some SBAR Panel 
members was to use it in a way similar to how a BLDS would be used to 
indicate the need for inspection and maintenance of the PM control 
device. Under this approach, we would specify a time period over which 
a significant increase in opacity level would trigger inspection of the 
PM control device for leaks or other malfunctions and maintenance (if 
needed). We recognize that the COMS currently being used in the lime 
manufacturing industry have a potential for error at opacities below 10 
percent, and that the relevant range of opacities for the 
aforementioned application would be below 10 percent. If COMS were 
allowed under the final rule, we would prefer to set an opacity limit 
because of the COMS' ability to directly measure opacity, instead of 
using the COMS in the aforementioned way (i.e., similar to how a BLDS 
would be used). However, we solicit comment on this option, 
specifically including comments regarding the opacity levels expected 
from a kiln in compliance with the proposed PM limit and the 
sensitivity of COMS at those levels.
    In accordance with the SBAR Panel's recommendations, we request 
comment on whether the proposed rule should specify separate, longer 
averaging time periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for 
demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits, or other 
alternative approaches for demonstrating compliance with operating 
parameter limits. For example, the Panel recommended that we request 
comment on an approach for demonstrating compliance involving two tiers 
of standards for monitoring operating parameters whereby, if the 
conditions of the first monitoring tier are exceeded, the facility 
operator would be required to implement corrective actions specified in 
an established plan to bring the operating parameter levels back to 
established levels and, if the conditions of the second tier are 
exceeded, the exceedance would constitute a violation of the standard 
in question.
    The SBAR Panel recommended that we take comment about the 
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that could 
be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits in 
lieu of or in addition to the parameters proposed in today's rule. For 
example, small entity representatives suggested that for scrubber-
equipped kilns, we should consider allowing the monitoring of 
parameters such as wet scrubber water pump amperage and wet scrubber 
exhaust gas outlet temperature in lieu of scrubber liquid flow rate. In 
addition, sources may request approval of alternative monitoring 
methods according to section 40 CFR 63.8(f).
2. PM From MPO
    Since the MACT basis for these emission units is the NSPS subpart 
OOO, the performance test requirements for PM, opacity, and visible 
emissions are based in part on those in the NSPS subpart OOO, with 
additional requirements as well. Further, as is required under the NSPS 
subpart OOO, the proposed rule would require the performance test 
measurement of opacity from certain MPO, including fugitive emission 
units, using EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We request 
comment on the suitability of using Method 9 for fugitive emission 
units, and whether other visual opacity measurement methods or 
techniques may be more suitable, such as provisions from proposed EPA 
Methods 203A, 203B, and/or 203C, 58 FR 61640, January 6, 1994.
    For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet 
scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas 
stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow 
rate during the PM performance test and then establish the 3-hour 
operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data. 
Pressure drop and flow rate provide an indication of the scrubber's 
performance and consequently PM emissions as well.
    For MPO subject to opacity limitations which do not use a wet 
scrubber control device, you would be required to conduct a 1-minute 
visible emissions check of each emission unit similar to the 
requirements under Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A7. The 
frequency of these checks is monthly but diminishes for the emission 
unit if no visible emissions are observed. If visible emissions are 
observed during any visible emissions check, you would be required to 
conduct a 6-minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of 
appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test would be 
required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions 
and the 6-minute opacity reading would be required to not exceed the 
applicable opacity limit. Due to the many MPO at each lime 
manufacturing plant, this type of periodic monitoring for opacity was 
selected. This periodic approach to monitoring rewards sources that 
have no visible emissions by allowing the frequency of testing to be 
reduced. Finally, this monitoring approach (visual observations of 
opacity instead of continuous opacity monitoring systems) is similar to 
the monitoring regime used in the NSPS subpart OOO, which is the basis 
for MACT. Although we are not compelled to use identical monitoring 
regimes, we believe it is appropriate to do so here because it will 
``reasonably ensure compliance with the standard.'' See National Lime, 
233 F. 3d at 635.
3. Other General Requirements
    The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan would be required 
to ensure effective performance of the air pollution control devices, 
monitoring equipment (including bag leak and PM detection equipment), 
and to minimize malfunctions.

[[Page 78064]]

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?

    There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U.S., 
not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About 
30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing 
facilities which would not be subject to the proposed rule. We estimate 
that 70 percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants would be 
major sources, co-located with major sources, or part of major sources, 
and, thus, 56 lime manufacturing plants would be subject to this 
proposed rule.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    We estimate that all sources (not including lime manufacturing 
plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source 
category collectively emit approximately 9,700 Mg/yr (10,700 tons/yr) 
of HAP. These HAP estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals 
from existing sources and projected new sources over the next 5 years. 
We estimate that the proposed standards would reduce HAP metals 
emissions from the lime manufacturing source category by about 21 Mg/yr 
(23 tons/yr), and would reduce HCl emissions by about 213 Mg/yr (235 
tons/yr). In addition, we estimate that the proposed standards would 
reduce PM emissions by about 14,000 Mg/yr (16,000 tons/yr) from a 
baseline level of 29,000 Mg/yr (32,000 tons/yr), and the proposed 
standards would reduce SO2 emissions by about 3,400 Mg/yr 
(3,700 tons/yr) from a baseline of 128,000 Mg/yr (141,000 tons/yr). The 
roughly 2 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the 
projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply 
with the proposed PM standards.
    Tables 1 and 2 summarize the baseline emissions and emissions 
reductions (or increases, in parentheses) estimates, in English and 
Metric units, respectively.

       Table 1.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
                                              Manufacturing Plants
                                                 [English Units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              PM  (tons/   HAP metals   HCl  (tons/  SO2  (tons/
                         Emissions                               yr)        (tons/yr)       yr)          yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources.......................       24,352          31.5        8,541      112,198
Baseline emissions--new sources............................        7,508          10.1        2,161       28,779
Total baseline emissions...................................       31,861          41.6       10,702      140,977
Emissions reductions-- existing sources....................       12,407          17.7          235        3,700
Emissions reductions--new sources..........................        3,154           5.4            0            0
Total emissions reductions.................................       15,561          23            235        3,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table 2.--Total National Baseline Emissions and Emissions Reductions for Both New and Existing Lime
                                              Manufacturing Plants
                                                 [Metric Units]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           HAP metals    HCl  (Mg/    SO2  (Mg/
                         Emissions                           PM  (Mg/yr)     (Mg/yr)        yr)          yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline emissions--existing sources.......................       22,093          28.6        7,748      101,787
Baseline emissions--new sources............................        6,811           9.2        1,961       26,108
Total baseline emissions...................................       28,904          38          9,709      127,895
Emissions reductions--existing sources.....................       11,256          16            213        3,356
Emissions reductions--new sources..........................        2,861           4.9            0            0
Total emissions reductions.................................       14,117          21            213        3,356
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What Are the Water Impacts?

    We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to 
increase by about 4,200 million gallons per year from current levels as 
a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption 
that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more 
efficient venturi wet scrubbers (that require more water flow rate) to 
comply with the PM standards. For new sources, we expect no additional 
water consumption as we do not expect new sources to install wet 
scrubbers for PM control.

D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?

    As a result of the proposed rule, solid waste would be generated as 
additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We 
estimate that about 16,000 tons/yr of additional solid waste would be 
generated as a result of today's proposed rule. This estimate does not 
include consideration that some of this would most likely be recycled 
directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material 
(agricultural lime).

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by 
about 7.2 million kilowatt-hours/yr (kWh/yr) as a result of the 
proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources 
will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi 
wet scrubbers (that require more electricity). For new sources, we 
expect an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/yr as 
a result of the proposed rule. This electricity demand is associated 
with complying with the PM standards for new sources.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The estimated total national capital cost of today's proposed rule 
is $24.2 million (for large businesses) plus $11.9 million for small 
businesses for a total of $36.1 million. This capital cost applies to 
projected new and existing sources and includes the cost to purchase 
and install emissions control equipment (e.g., existing PM control 
equipment upgrades), monitoring equipment (the cost of the rule is 
estimated assuming bag leak and PM detectors would be installed on all 
lime kilns located at major sources, although other monitoring options 
are available, such as COMS), the costs of initial performance tests, 
and emissions tests

[[Page 78065]]

to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source and 
hence subject to the standards.
    The estimated annualized costs of the proposed standards are $22.4 
million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs 
of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance 
costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and 
annualized costs of the initial emissions testing.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

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

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

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

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

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

[[Page 78066]]

comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials.

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we 
generally would be required to prepare a written statement, including a 
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome alternative 
if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why 
that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have 
developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. 
The plan would be required to provide for notifying potentially 
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small 
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of 
our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental 
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on 
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is 
approximately $22.4 million per year. The proposed rule contains no 
mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's 
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 
205 of the UMRA.
    We have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such 
governments or impose obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

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

[[Page 78067]]

would be $205,000, which is much less than the average control costs 
for large firms.
    The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have 
materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions 
under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule 
indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed 
today. For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the 
average total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $567,000 
per small company (compared with $358,000 in today's proposal). About 
85 percent (11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur 
compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1 
percent of sales (compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in 
today's proposal). And 77 percent (10 firms) of those small businesses 
expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced impacts 
greater than 3 percent of sales (compared with 31 percent of those 
small businesses in today's proposal).
    Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's 
rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small 
entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609(b) of the RFA 
to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the 
small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule 
requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised 
of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small 
Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel 
solicited advice from eight small entity representatives (SER), 
including the NLA and member companies and non-member companies of the 
NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel distributed a package of 
descriptive and technical materials explaining the rule-in-progress to 
the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met with the SER to hear their 
comments on preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related 
information. The Panel also received written comments from the SER in 
response to both the outreach materials and the discussions at the 
meeting.
    Consistent with RFA/SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the 
assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to the 
elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in 
the docket for the proposed rule.
    The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in 
response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the 
affordability and technical feasibility of add-on controls.
    These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses:
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl 
work practice standard, invoking section 112(d)(4) of CAA.
    Response: The proposal does not include an emission standard for 
HCl.
    [sbull] Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry 
should not be considered as emission units under the definition of 
affected source.
    Response: The MPO in the quarry are excluded from the definition of 
affected source.
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the ``bubbling'' 
of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant, 
such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime 
plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each 
individual kiln and cooler.
    Response: The proposed rule defines the affected source as 
including all kilns and coolers (among other listed emission units) at 
the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average 
emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination.
    [sbull] Recommend that we request comment on establishing a 
subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl 
emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard.
    Response: We are requesting comment on this issue.
    [sbull] Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and 
emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the 
results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment 
on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/or spatial 
constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD.
    Response: We are requesting comment on these issues and have 
presented said analysis.
    [sbull] Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the 
ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source 
determinations.
    Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.
    [sbull] Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed 
rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP 
to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area 
source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues.
    Response: Today's preamble includes this language.
    [sbull] Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option 
of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on 
various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on 
what an appropriate opacity limit would be.
    Response: The preamble solicits comment on these issues.
    [sbull] Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options 
or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time 
periods (or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating 
compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with 
operating parameter limits using a two-tier approach; and the 
suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be 
monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in 
lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the 
draft rule.
    Response: Today's preamble solicits comment on these issues.
    [sbull] Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3 
and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
(ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed from the proposed 
rule.
    Response: Today's proposed rule does not include this requirement.
    [sbull] Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in 
modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a 
sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities 
reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to 
pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable 
opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's 
markets.
    Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations 
and analyses.
    In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed 
rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime 
manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small 
entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the 
Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under 
the CAA, and these pre-Panel efforts have been discussed previously in 
this preamble. These are summarized below.
    1. Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of which 
three are small businesses, would not be affected sources.

[[Page 78068]]

    2. Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only would 
not be affected sources as well.
    3. We are proposing PM emission limits which allow the affected 
source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will 
meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations 
selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly 
beyond-the-MACT-floor options that we considered. An emission limit for 
mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond-the-
MACT-floor control option.
    4. We are proposing that compliance demonstrations for MPO be 
conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. We believe this will 
reduce the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the 
rule when implemented.
    5. Furthermore, we are proposing the minimum performance testing 
frequency (every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements specified in the general provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A).
    6. Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small 
businesses would not be subject to the proposed standards because they 
are area sources.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. We have 
prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) document (2072.01), 
and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U.S. EPA, Office 
of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division (2822T), 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by email at 
auby.susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672. You may also download 
a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require development and implementation of 
an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which would include 
inspections of the control devices but would not require any 
notifications or reports beyond those required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping requirements 
require only the specific information needed to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the rule) is estimated to be 7,766 labor hours per year, at a total 
annual cost of $621,673. This estimate includes notifications that 
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; 
notifications of compliance status, including the results of 
performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do 
not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total 
capital/startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring, 
reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year period of the 
ICR are estimated to be $1,000,000, with annualized costs of $377,933.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2) develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; (3) adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection 
of information; (5) search data sources; (6) complete and review the 
collection of information; and (7) transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for our 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq., the EPA 
must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information 
collection request in a proposed or final rule.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments 
on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 
(2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by 
courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection 
Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 ((202) 566-1700); and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' 
Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to 
make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 
December 20, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full 
effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will 
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection 
requirements contained in the proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their 
regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) 
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the 
OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and 
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the 
following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 
2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent 
with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus 
standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary 
consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 
5D, 9, 22,

[[Page 78069]]

and 321. The search and review results have been documented and are 
placed in the docket (A-95-41) for the proposed rule.
    The three voluntary consensus standards described below were 
identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the 
purposes of the proposed rule.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 10, 
``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for 
its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon 
monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part 
10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420-99, ``Standard Test 
Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct 
Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),'' is 
appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the proposed 
rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns. The standard 
ASTM D6420-99 will be incorporated by reference in Sec.  63.14.
    Similar to EPA's performance-based Method 18, ASTM D6420-99 is also 
a performance-based method for measurement of gaseous organic 
compounds. However, ASTM D6420-99 was written to support the specific 
use of highly portable and automated GC/MS. While offering advantages 
over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less 
stringent criteria for accepting GC/MS results than required by Method 
18. Therefore, ASTM D6420-99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 
only where the target compound(s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of 
ASTM D6420-99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per 
billion by volume (ppbv) and 100 ppmv.
    For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420-99, 
but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the proposed rule 
specifies that the additional system continuing calibration check after 
each run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be 
followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if 
there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered 
water soluble. For target compound(s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM 
D6420-99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM 
D6420-99 does not apply.
    As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420-99 in the proposed rule. The 
EPA will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420-
99. This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than 
GC/MS.
    The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735-01, ``Standard Test 
Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral 
Calcining Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the proposed rule 
provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142 
of the proposed rule are also addressed in the methodology.
    In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the 
proposed rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures 
identified 15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined 
that 12 of these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the 
HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule 
were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of 
this rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for 
this purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the 
docket for the proposed rule.
    Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this 
search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the 
purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a 
voluntary consensus body: ASME/BSR MFC 13M, ``Flow Measurement by 
Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 (and possibly 1); ASME/BSR MFC 
12M, ``Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary 
Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of 
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform 
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320.
    The standard ASTM D6348-98, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by 
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has 
been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the 
ASTM Subcommittee D22-03 is now undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348-
98. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical 
equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could 
be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability.
    Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to proposed subpart AAAAA list the EPA 
testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under Sec. Sec.  63.7(f) 
and 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply 
to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative 
monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, 
performance specifications, or procedures.

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

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(27) and 
(b)(28) to read as follows:

[[Page 78070]]

Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (27) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography--Mass 
Spectrometry (GC/MS), IBR approved [date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register] for Sec.  63.7142.
    (28) ASTM D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous 
Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources--
Impinger Method, IBR approved [date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register] for Sec.  63.7142.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows:
Subpart AAAAA--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
for Lime Manufacturing Plants

What This Subpart Covers

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

Emission Limitations

63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements

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

Continuous Compliance Requirements

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

Notifications, Reports, and Records

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

Other Requirements and Information

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

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63

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

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.7080  What is the purpose of this subpart?

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


Sec.  63.7081  Am I subject to this subpart?

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


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

    (a) This subpart applies to each existing, reconstructed, or new 
LMP that is located at a major source.
    (b) The affected source is the collection of all of the emission 
units listed in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Emission units are lime kilns, lime coolers and materials 
processing operations (MPO) as defined in paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (d) Materials processing operations are raw material grinding 
mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, 
bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket 
elevators and belt conveyors, except as provided by paragraphs (e) 
through (g) of this section.
    (e) Materials processing operations that process only lime product 
or fuel are not subject to this subpart.
    (f) Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper or 
crusher is not subject to this subpart.
    (g) The first emission unit in the sequence of MPO that is subject 
to this subpart is the raw material storage bin. Any MPO which precedes 
the raw material storage bin is not subject to this subpart. 
Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart 
is the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring 
material from the raw material storage bin to the next emission unit.
    (h) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) A new affected source is the collection of all emission units 
listed in paragraph (c) of this section for which construction begins 
after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in Sec.  
63.7081 at the time you commenced construction.
    (k) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria 
for reconstruction defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (l) [Reserved]
    (m) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


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

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (1) If you start up your affected source before the [date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply 
with the emission limitations no later than [date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register].
    (2) If you start up your affected source after [date of publication 
of the final

[[Page 78071]]

rule in the Federal Register], then you must comply with the emission 
limitations for new and reconstructed affected sources upon startup of 
your affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing LMP, 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 
[3 years from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register]. The compliance date is site-specific for existing LMP and is 
the day following completion of all the performance tests required 
under Sec.  63.7110(a).
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the 
deadlines specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply.
    (1) Any portion of the LMP that is a new affected source or a 
reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart 
upon startup.
    (2) The emission units of the existing LMP subject to emission 
limitations under this subpart must be in compliance with this subpart 
within 3 years after the source becomes a major source of HAP.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements in Sec.  63.7130 
according to the schedule in Sec.  63.7130 and in subpart A of this 
part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are 
required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations


Sec.  63.7090  What emission limitations must I meet?

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

General Compliance Requirements


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

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

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements


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

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

[[Page 78072]]

section, and ends at 3:01 a.m. on the same day.


Sec.  63.7111  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

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


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

    (a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1) and under the specific conditions 
specified in Table 4 to this subpart.
    (c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must 
conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in 
this section, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last 
at least 1 hour.
    (e) The emission rate of particulate matter (PM) from the lime kiln 
(and the lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere 
from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using Equation 1 of 
this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.000

Where:

E = Emission rate of PM, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, g/dscm 
(grain/dscf).
Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr).
Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, g/dscm 
(grain/dscf). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler 
exhaust to the atmosphere.
Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscm/hr 
(dscf/hr). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust 
to the atmosphere.
P = Stone feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
K = Conversion factor, 1000 g/kg (7000 grains/lb).

    (f) The combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and 
coolers within an existing affected source at an LMP must be calculated 
using Equation 2 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.001

Where:

ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at an 
existing LMP, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/cooler 
combination i, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
n = Number of existing kilns at the existing affected source.

    (g) The combined particulate emission rate from all new or 
reconstructed kilns and coolers must be calculated using Equation 3 of 
this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.002

Where:

ETN = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at a 
new or reconstructed LMP, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Ej = Emission rate of PM from kiln j, or from kiln/cooler 
combination j, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of stone feed.
Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, Mg/hr (ton/hr).
m = Number of kilns and kiln/cooler combinations within the new or 
reconstructed affected source.

    (h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test 
reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (10) of this section, as well as all other relevant 
information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made 
available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing, if 
requested.
    (1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution 
control system;
    (2) Sampling location description(s);
    (3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any 
modifications to standard procedures;
    (4) Test results, including opacity;
    (5) Quality assurance procedures and results;
    (6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of 
standards, and calibration procedures;
    (7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory 
analyses;
    (8) Documentation of calculations;
    (9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and
    (10) Any other information required by the test method.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (j) You must establish any applicable 3-hour rolling average 
operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the 
applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs 
(j)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance 
test and include the parameter record(s) in the performance test 
report.
    (2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15-minute period 
of each test run.
    (3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the 
average of all the 15-minute parameter values for the run.
    (4) Calculate the 3-hour operating limit by taking the average of 
the three test run averages.
    (k) For each building enclosing any MPO that is subject to a 
visible emission (VE) limit, you must conduct a VE check according to 
item 18 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs 
(k)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of 
the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other 
than condensed water vapor.
    (2) Select a position at least 15 but not more than 1,320 feet from 
each side of the building with the sun or other light source generally 
at your back.
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must 
meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 in appendix A 
to part 60 of this chapter.


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

    (a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to your OM&M plan required 
by Sec.  63.7100(d) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section, 
and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity 
monitoring system (COMS) as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, 
General Provisions and according to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 of 
this chapter.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15 minute period.
    (2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least three 
of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is 
not out of control according to your OM&M plan.
    (3) To calculate the average for each 3-hour averaging period, you 
must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period 
using only hourly average values that are based on valid data (i.e., 
not from out-of-control periods). The 3-hour rolling average is updated 
each hour.

[[Page 78073]]

    (4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your OM&M plan.
    (5) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation 
according to the OM&M plan.
    (b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (b)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the 
flow rate.
    (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (c)(1) through (7) of 
this section.
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a 
transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
    (4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet any 
applicable requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (d)(1) 
through (8) of this section.
    (1) The bag leak detection system 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 bag leak detection system must provide output 
of relative PM emissions.
    (3) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will 
sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM 
emissions greater than a preset level.
    (4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (5) For a positive-pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell 
must have a bag leak detector. For a negative-pressure or induced-air 
fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of 
the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required (for 
either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system 
instrumentation and alarm.
    (6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must 
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm 
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified 
in the OM&M plan required by Sec.  63.7100(d). In no event may the 
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 
50 percent over a 365 day period unless a responsible official, as 
defined in Sec.  63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that 
the fabric filter has been inspected and found to be in good operating 
condition.
    (e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) and (e)(1) through (8) of this 
section.
    (1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be 
capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams 
per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative 
PM emissions.
    (3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound 
automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions 
greater than a preset level.
    (4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant 
personnel will be able to hear it.
    (5) For a positive-pressure electrostatic precipitator (ESP), each 
compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative-pressure or 
induced-air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the 
ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required (for either type of ESP), 
detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm.
    (6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated, 
adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written 
specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must 
be incorporated into the OM&M plan.
    (7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of 
establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways:
    (i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device.
    (ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm 
set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified 
in the OM&M plan required by Sec.  63.7100(d). In no event may the 
range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 
50 percent over a 365-day period unless a responsible official as 
defined in Sec.  63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that 
the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    (f) For each emission unit equipped with an add-on air pollution 
control device, you must inspect each capture/collection and closed 
vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system 
is operating in accordance with the operating requirements in item 6 of 
Table 2 to this subpart and record the results of each inspection.
    (g) For each COMS used to monitor an add-on air pollution control 
device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of 
this section.
    (1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device.
    (2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required 
by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS-1 
of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.


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

    (a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission 
limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to 
Table 3 to this subpart.
    (b) You must establish each site-specific operating limit in Table 
2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in 
Sec.  63.7112(j) and Table 4 to this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7130(e).

[[Page 78074]]

Continuous Compliance Requirements


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

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero adjustments), you must 
monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all 
times that the emission unit is operating.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum 
data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control device and associated control system.


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

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission 
limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you 
according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this 
subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the 
emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7131.
    (c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
    (d) Consistent with Sec. Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations 
that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will 
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e).
    (e) For each MPO subject to an opacity limitation as specified in 
Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an 
opacity limitation, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in 
Table 6 to this subpart, and as follows:
    (1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of 
each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify 
if there are visible emissions, other than condensed water vapor.
    (2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the 
affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at 
your back.
    (3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to 
conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must 
meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 of appendix A 
to part 60 of this chapter.

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.7130  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  
63.6(h)(4) and (5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (6), and 63.9 
(a) through (j) that apply to you by the dates specified.
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2), if you start up your affected 
source before [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 
calendar days after [date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new or 
reconstructed affected source on or after [date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial 
Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you startup your 
affected source.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial 
compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, 
you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to Sec.  
63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3 
to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must 
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of 
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the 
initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this 
subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the 
requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the 
Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test 
results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2).


Sec.  63.7131  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section:
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the 
compliance date that is specified for your source in Sec.  63.7083.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the 
first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified 
for your affected source in Sec.  63.7083.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the 
first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the 
permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual 
reports pursuant to Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and 
subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting 
authority has established instead of according to the dates in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.

[[Page 78075]]

    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations 
(emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that 
apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the 
emission limitations during the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which the operating parameter 
monitoring systems was out-of-control as specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), 
a statement that there were no periods during the which the continuous 
monitoring system (CMS) was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an 
affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the 
emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must 
contain the information specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and 
(d)(1) and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from an emission limitation (emission limit, 
operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected 
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation 
in this subpart, you must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) and (e)(1) through (12) of this section. 
This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the 
affected source.
    (9) A brief description of the process units.
    (10) A brief description of the CMS.
    (11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit 
pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all 
deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) 
of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 
to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  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.


Sec.  63.7132  What records must I keep?

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


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

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

Other Requirements and Information


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

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


Sec.  63.7141  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or by a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency (as well as the U.S. 
EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You 
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this

[[Page 78076]]

section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and are not 
transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the non-opacity emission 
limitations in Sec.  63.7090(a).
    (2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in Sec.  
63.7090(a).
    (3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in Sec.  
63.7090(b).
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


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

    (a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must 
measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns at your 
plant using either:
    (1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part,
    (2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or
    (3) ASTM Method D6735-01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of 
Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust 
Sources--Impinger Method (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 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14).
    (ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set 
of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1 
of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.003

(Eq. 1)Where:

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

    (iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard 
deviation according to Equation 2 of this section:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20DE02.004

Where:

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

    (iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are 
invalid and the test must be repeated.
    (v) The post-test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM 
Method D6735-01 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14) is 
conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated according to section 
12.6 of ASTM Method D6735-01 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14).
    (vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent, 
inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of 
this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be 
repeated.
    (b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of 
specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability 
determinations under Sec.  63.7081, you may use either:
    (1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or
    (2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or
    (3) ASTM D6420-99, Standard Test Method for Determination of 
Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography-Mass 
Spectrometry (GC/MS), (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 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14);
    (ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by 
volume and 100 ppmv;
    (iii) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), but potentially 
detected by mass spectrometry, the additional system continuing 
calibration check after each run, as detailed in section 10.5.3 of ASTM 
D6420-99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), is conducted, 
met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is 
no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water 
soluble; and
    (iv) For target compound(s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420-
99 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  63.14), and not amenable to 
detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420-99 (incorporated by 
reference--see Sec.  63.14) may not be used.


Sec.  63.7143  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 
Sec.  63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Bag leak detector means the monitoring device and system for a 
fabric filter that identifies an increase in PM emissions resulting 
from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an alarm.
    Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material 
from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is 
carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end.
    Bucket elevator means a material conveying device consisting of a 
head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single or 
double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached.
    Building means any frame structure with a roof.
    Capture system means the equipment (including enclosures, hoods, 
ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM generated 
by one or more process operations to a control device.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process 
operations at an LMP.
    Conveying system means a device for transporting material from one 
piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant. 
Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt 
conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject 
to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any

[[Page 78077]]

emission limitation (including any operating limit);
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation (including any operating 
limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, 
regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, 
operating limit, or VE limit.
    Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, raw material grinding 
mill, raw material storage bin, conveying system transfer point, bulk 
loading or unloading operation, bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an 
LMP.
    Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture 
system.
    Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing 
of any feed material. Grinding mills include, but are not limited to, 
the hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The 
grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air separator, or air 
classifier, where such systems are used.
    Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium 
hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product and water.
    Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln (or part of 
the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime 
produced by the kiln.
    Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater, 
used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln 
types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln, 
rotary hearth kiln, double-shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln.
    Lime manufacturing plant (LMP) means any plant which uses a lime 
kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous 
material by calcination.
    Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process 
including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead-burned dolomite.
    Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium 
carbonate (referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium 
limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/or the double carbonate of both 
calcium and magnesium (referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or 
dolomite).
    Material means the raw limestone or stone feed used at an LMP.
    Materials processing operation (MPO) means the equipment and 
transfer points between the equipment used to prepare, process, or 
transport limestone, or stone feed, and includes grinding mills, raw 
material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading 
or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt 
conveyors.
    Particulate matter (PM) detector means the monitoring device and 
system for an ESP that identifies relative levels in PM emissions and 
sounds an alarm at a preset level.
    Positive pressure fabric filter or ESP means a fabric filter or ESP 
with the fan(s) on the upstream side of the control device.
    Screening operation means a device for separating material 
according to size by passing undersize material through one or more 
mesh surfaces (screens) in series and retaining oversize material on 
the mesh surfaces (screens).
    Stack emission means the PM that is released to the atmosphere from 
a capture system.
    Stone feed means the limestone feedstock and mill scale or other 
iron oxide additives that are fed to the lime kiln. Stone feed does not 
include the fuels used in the lime kiln to produce the heat needed to 
calcine the limestone into the lime product.
    Storage bin means a facility for storage (including surge bins) of 
material prior to further processing or loading.
    Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the 
material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor (except where the 
material is being transferred to a stockpile).
    Truck dumping means the unloading of material from movable vehicles 
designed to transport material from one location to another. Movable 
vehicles include but are not limited to trucks, front end loaders, skip 
hoists, and railcars.
    Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced 
air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM 
emissions from one or more emission units.

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63

          Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Emission Limits
 [You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies
                to you, as required in Sec.   63.7090(a)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           You must meet the following
               For . . .                    emission limitation . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All lime kilns and their associated   The sum of the PM emissions
 lime coolers at an existing LMP.         from all of the kilns and
                                          associated lime coolers must
                                          not exceed 0.06 kilograms per
                                          megagram (kg/Mg) (0.12 pounds
                                          per ton) of stone feed.
2. All lime kilns and their associated   The sum of the PM emissions
 lime coolers at a new or reconstructed   from all of the kilns and
 LMP.                                     associated lime coolers must
                                          not exceed 0.05 kg/Mg (0.10
                                          pounds per ton) of stone feed.
3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a     PM emissions must not exceed
 new, reconstructed or existing           0.05 grams per dry standard
 affected source.                         cubic meter (g/dscm).
4. Stack emissions from all MPO at a     Emissions must not exceed 7
 new, reconstructed or existing           percent opacity.
 affected source, unless the stack
 emissions are discharged through a wet
 scrubber control device.
5. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a  Emissions must not exceed 10
 new, reconstructed or existing           percent opacity.
 affected source, except as provided by
 item 6 of this Table 1.
6. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or    All of the individually
 existing affected source enclosed in a   affected MPO must comply with
 building.                                the applicable PM and opacity
                                          emission limitations in items
                                          3 through 5 of this Table 1,
                                          or the building must comply
                                          with the following: there must
                                          be no visible emissions from
                                          the building, except from a
                                          vent; and vent emissions must
                                          not exceed the stack emissions
                                          limitations in items 3 and 4
                                          of this Table 1.

[[Page 78078]]

 
7. Each fabric filter that controls      Emissions must not exceed 7
 emissions from only an individual,       percent opacity.
 enclosed storage bin.
8. Each set of multiple storage bins at  You must comply with the
 a new, reconstructed or existing         emission limits in items 3 and
 affected source, with combined stack     4 of this Table 1.
 emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Operating Limits
 [You must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies
                to you, as required in Sec.   63.7090(b)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               For . . .                          You must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler   Maintain and operate the fabric
 (if there is a separate exhaust to the   filter such that the bag leak
 atmosphere from the associated lime      detector alarm is not
 cooler) equipped with a fabric filter.   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 the requirements
                                          in Sec.   63.7113(d) and (f)
                                          and Table 5 to this subpart.
                                          In lieu of a bag leak
                                          detector, maintain the fabric
                                          filter such that the 6-minute
                                          average opacity for any 6-
                                          minute block period does not
                                          exceed 15 percent; and comply
                                          with the requirements in Sec.
                                           63.7113(f) and (g) and Table
                                          5 to this subpart.
2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet    Maintain the 3-hour rolling
 scrubber.                                average exhaust gas stream
                                          pressure drop across the wet
                                          scrubber greater than or equal
                                          to the pressure drop operating
                                          limit established during the
                                          most recent PM performance
                                          test; and maintain the 3-hour
                                          rolling average 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       Maintain the 3-hour rolling
 electrostatic precipitator.              average current and voltage
                                          input to each electrical field
                                          of the ESP greater than or
                                          equal to the average current
                                          and voltage input to each
                                          field of the ESP established
                                          during the most recent
                                          performance test; or, in lieu
                                          of complying with these ESP
                                          parameter operating limits,
                                          install a PM detector and
                                          maintain and operate the ESP
                                          such that the PM detector
                                          alarm is not activated and
                                          alarm condition does not exist
                                          for more than 5 percent of the
                                          total operating time in a 6-
                                          month period, and comply with
                                          Sec.   63.7113(e); or,
                                          maintain the ESP such that the
                                          6-minute average opacity for
                                          any 6-minute block period does
                                          not exceed 15 percent, and
                                          comply with the requirements
                                          in Sec.   63.7113(g); and
                                          comply with the requirements
                                          in Sec.   63.7113(f) and Table
                                          5 to this subpart.
4. Each materials processing operation   Maintain the 3-hour rolling
 subject to a PM limit which uses a wet   average exhaust gas stream
 scrubber.                                pressure drop across the wet
                                          scrubber greater than or equal
                                          to the pressure drop operating
                                          limit established during the
                                          PM performance test; and
                                          maintain the 3-hour rolling
                                          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 5 to this
                                          subpart.
6. Each emission unit equipped with an   (1) Vent captured emissions
 add-on air pollution control device.     through a closed system,
                                          except that dilution air may
                                          be added to emission streams
                                          for the purpose of controlling
                                          temperature at the inlet to a
                                          fabric filter.
                                         (2) Operate each capture/
                                          collection system according to
                                          the procedures and
                                          requirements in the OM&M plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78079]]


                  Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Initial Compliance With Emission Limits
  [You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the
                                 following table, as required in Sec.   63.7114]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  You have demonstrated initial
                                                For the emission limitation . .   compliance, if after following
                  For . . .                                    .                     the requirements in Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112 . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. All lime kilns and their associated lime    If the lime cooler associated     The kiln outlet PM emissions
 coolers at a new or reconstructed affected     with the kiln has no separate     (and if applicable, summed
 source and all lime kilns and their            exhaust to the atmosphere, PM     with the separate cooler PM
 associated lime coolers at an existing         emissions from all kilns and      emissions), based on the PM
 affected source.                               coolers at an existing LMP must   emissions measured using
                                                not exceed 0.06 kg PM per Mg of   Method 5 in appendix A to part
                                                stone feed (0.12 lb PM per ton    60 of this chapter and the
                                                of stone feed); PM emissions      stone feed rate measurement,
                                                from all kilns and coolers at a   over the period of the initial
                                                new or reconstructed LMP must     performance test, do not
                                                not exceed 0.05 kg PM per Mg of   exceed the emission limit; if
                                                stone feed (0.10 lb PM per ton    the lime kiln is controlled
                                                of stone feed); if a lime         with an ESP (and you are not
                                                cooler associated with a kiln     opting to monitor PM emissions
                                                has a separate exhaust to the     from the ESP with a PM
                                                atmosphere, the sum of all kiln   detector or COMS) or wet
                                                and cooler PM emissions must      scrubber, you have a record of
                                                not exceed 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12       the applicable operating
                                                pounds per ton) of stone feed     parameters over the 3-hour
                                                for existing LMP and 0.05 kg/Mg   performance test during which
                                                (0.1 pounds per ton) of stone     emissions did not exceed the
                                                feed for kilns at new or          emissions limitation; if the
                                                reconstructed LMP.                lime kiln is controlled by a
                                                                                  fabric filter or ESP and you
                                                                                  are opting to monitor PM
                                                                                  emissions from the ESP with a
                                                                                  PM detector or you are opting
                                                                                  to monitor PM emissions from
                                                                                  the fabric filter with a bag
                                                                                  leak 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 a fabric
                                                                                  filter or ESP and you are
                                                                                  opting to monitor PM emissions
                                                                                  using a COMS, you have
                                                                                  installed and are operating
                                                                                  the monitoring device
                                                                                  according to the requirements
                                                                                  in Sec.   63.7113(g).
2. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new,      PM emissions must not exceed      The outlet PM emissions, based
 reconstructed or existing affected source.     0.05 g/dscm.                      on Method 5 or Method 17 in
                                                                                  appendix A to part 60 of this
                                                                                  chapter, over the period of
                                                                                  the initial performance test
                                                                                  do not exceed 0.05 g/dscm; and
                                                                                  if the emission unit is
                                                                                  controlled with a wet
                                                                                  scrubber, you have a record of
                                                                                  the scrubber's pressure drop
                                                                                  and liquid flow rate operating
                                                                                  parameters over the 3-hour
                                                                                  performance test during which
                                                                                  emissions did not exceed the
                                                                                  emissions limitation.
3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new,      Emissions must not exceed 7       Each of the thirty 6-minute
 reconstructed or existing affected source,     percent opacity.                  opacity averages during the
 unless the stack emissions are discharged                                        initial compliance period,
 through a wet scrubber control device.                                           using Method 9 in appendix A
                                                                                  to part 60 of this chapter,
                                                                                  does not exceed the 7 percent
                                                                                  opacity limit.
4. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new,   Emissions must not exceed 10      Each of the 6-minute opacity
 reconstructed or existing affected source.     percent opacity.                  averages during the initial
                                                                                  compliance period, using
                                                                                  Method 9 in appendix A to part
                                                                                  60 of this chapter, does not
                                                                                  exceed the 10 percent opacity
                                                                                  limit.
5. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or          All of the individually affected  All the MPO enclosed in the
 existing affected source, enclosed in a        MPO must comply with the          building have demonstrated
 building.                                      applicable PM and opacity         initial compliance according
                                                emission limitations for items    to the applicable requirements
                                                2 through 4 of this Table 3, or   for items 2 through 4 of this
                                                the building must comply with     Table 3; or if you are
                                                the following: there must be no   complying with the building
                                                visible emissions from the        emission limitations, there
                                                building, except from a vent,     are no visible emissions from
                                                and vent emissions must not       the building according to item
                                                exceed the emission limitations   18 of Table 4 to this subpart
                                                in items 2 and 3 of this Table    and Sec.   63.7112(k), and you
                                                3.                                demonstrate initial compliance
                                                                                  with applicable building vent
                                                                                  emissions limitations
                                                                                  according to the requirements
                                                                                  in items 2 and 3 of this Table
                                                                                  3.
6. Each fabric filter that controls emissions  Emissions must not exceed 7       Each of the ten 6-minute
 from only an individual storage bin.           percent opacity.                  averages during the 1-hour
                                                                                  initial compliance period,
                                                                                  using Method 9 in appendix A
                                                                                  to part 60 of this chapter,
                                                                                  does not exceed the 7 percent
                                                                                  opacity limit.
7. Each set of multiple storage bins with      You must comply with the          You demonstrate initial
 combined stack emissions.                      emission limitations in items 2   compliance according to the
                                                and 3 of this Table 3.            requirements in items 2 and 3
                                                                                  of this Table 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 78080]]


                    Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Performance Tests
     [You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in Sec.
                                                    63.7112]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             According to the
              For . . .                     You must . . .            Using . . .         following requirements
                                                                                                  . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln and each associated  Select the location of   Method 1 or 1A of        Sampling sites must be
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    the sampling port and    appendix A to part 60    located at the outlet
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the     the number of traverse   of this chapter; and     of the control
 associated lime cooler.                ports.                   Sec.   63.7(d)(1)(i).    device(s) and prior to
                                                                                          any releases to the
                                                                                          atmosphere.
2. Each lime kiln and each associated  Determine velocity and   Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D,    Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    volumetric flow rate.    2F, or 2G in appendix
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              A to part 60 of this
 associated lime cooler.                                         chapter.
3. Each lime kiln and each associated  Conduct gas molecular    Method 3, 3A, or 3B in   Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    weight analysis.         appendix A to part 60
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              of this chapter.
 associated lime cooler.
4. Each lime kiln and each associated  Measure moisture         Method 4 in appendix A   Not applicable.
 lime cooler, if there is a separate    content of the stack     to part 60 of this
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the     gas.                     chapter.
 associated limit cooler.
5. Each lime kiln and each associated  Measure PM emissions...  Method 5 in appendix A   Conduct the test(s) at
 lime cooler, if there is a separate                             to part 60 of this       the highest production
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              chapter.                 level reasonably
 associated lime cooler, and which                                                        expected to occur; the
 uses a negative pressure PM control                                                      minimum sampling
 device.                                                                                  volume must be 0.85
                                                                                          dscm (30 dscf); if
                                                                                          there is a separate
                                                                                          lime cooler exhaust to
                                                                                          the atmosphere, you
                                                                                          must conduct the
                                                                                          Method 5 test of the
                                                                                          cooler exhaust
                                                                                          concurrently with the
                                                                                          kiln exhaust test.
6. Each lime kiln and each associated  Measure PM emissions...  Method 5D in appendix A  Conduct the test(s) at
 lime cooler, if there is a separate                             to part 60 of this       the highest production
 exhaust to the atmosphere from the                              chapter.                 level reasonably
 associated lime cooler, and which                                                        expected to occur; if
 uses a positive pressure fabric                                                          there is a separate
 filter or ESP.                                                                           lime cooler exhaust to
                                                                                          the atmosphere, you
                                                                                          must conduct the
                                                                                          Method 5 test of the
                                                                                          separate cooler
                                                                                          exhaust concurrently
                                                                                          with the kiln exhaust
                                                                                          test.
7. Each lime kiln....................  Determine the mass rate  Any suitable device....  Calibrate and maintain
                                        of stone feed to the                              the device according
                                        kiln during the kiln                              to manufacturer's
                                        PM emissions test.                                instructions; the
                                                                                          measuring device used
                                                                                          must be accurate to
                                                                                          within +/-5 percent of
                                                                                          the mass rate over its
                                                                                          operating range.
8. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet  Establish the operating  Data for the gas stream  The continuous pressure
 scrubber.                              limit for the average    pressure drop            drop measurement
                                        gas stream pressure      measurement device       device must be
                                        drop across the wet      during the kiln PM       accurate within plus
                                        scrubber.                performance test.        or minus 1 percent;
                                                                                          you must collect the
                                                                                          pressure drop data
                                                                                          during the period of
                                                                                          the performance test
                                                                                          and determine the
                                                                                          operating limit
                                                                                          according to
                                                                                          63.7112(j).
9. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet  Establish the operating  Data from the liquid     The continuous
 scrubber.                              limit for the average    flow rate measurement    scrubbing liquid flow
                                        liquid flow rate to      device during the kiln   rate measuring device
                                        the scrubber.            PM performance test.     must be accurate
                                                                                          within plus or minus 1
                                                                                          percent; you must
                                                                                          collect the flow rate
                                                                                          data during the period
                                                                                          of the performance
                                                                                          test and determine the
                                                                                          operating limit
                                                                                          according to
                                                                                          63.7112(j).
10. Each lime kiln equipped with an    Establish the operating  The ESP operating data   You must collect the
 ESP, except ESP monitored with a PM    limits for the average   during the kiln PM       current and voltage
 detector in lieu of monitoring ESP     current and the          performance test.        data during the period
 parameters.                            average voltage                                   of the performance
                                        supplied to each field                            test and determine the
                                        of the ESP.                                       operating limits for
                                                                                          both parameters
                                                                                          according to
                                                                                          63.7112(j).

[[Page 78081]]

 
11. (a) Each lime kiln equipped with   Have installed and have  Standard operating       According to the
 a fabric filter or ESP that is         operating the bag leak   procedures               requirements in Sec.
 monitored with a PM detector.          detector or PM           incorporated into the    63.7113(d) or (e),
                                        detector, respectively   OM&M plan.               respectively.
                                        prior to the
                                        performance test.
11. (b) Each lime kiln equipped with   Have installed and have  Standard operating       According to the
 a fabric filter or ESP that is         operating the COMS       procedures               requirements in Sec.
 monitored with a COMS.                 prior to the             incorporated into the    63.7113(g).
                                        performance test.        OM&M plan and as
                                                                 required by 40 CFR
                                                                 part 63, subpart A,
                                                                 General Provisions and
                                                                 according to PS-1 of
                                                                 appendix B to part 60
                                                                 of this chapter.
12. Each stack emission from an MPO,   Measure PM emissions...  Method 5 or Method 17    The sample volume must
 vent from a building enclosing an                               in appendix A to part    be at least 1.70 dscm
 MPO, or set of multiple storage bins                            60 of this chapter.      (60 dscf); for Method
 with combined stack emissions, which                                                     5, if the gas stream
 is subject to a PM emission limit.                                                       being sampled is at
                                                                                          ambient temperature,
                                                                                          the sampling probe and
                                                                                          filter may be operated
                                                                                          without heaters; and
                                                                                          if the gas stream is
                                                                                          above ambient
                                                                                          temperature, the
                                                                                          sampling probe and
                                                                                          filter may be operated
                                                                                          at a temperature high
                                                                                          enough, but no higher
                                                                                          than 121[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 an MPO,   Conduct opacity           Method 9 in appendix A  The test duration must
 vent from a building enclosing an      observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 3
 MPO, or set of multiple storage bins                            chapter.                 hours and you must
 with combined stack emissions, which                                                     obtain at least
 is subject to an opacity limit.                                                          thirty, 6-minute
                                                                                          averages.
14. Each stack emissions source from   Establish the average    Data for the gas stream  The pressure drop
 an MPO subject to a PM or opacity      gas stream pressure      pressure drop            measurement device
 limit, which uses a wet scrubber.      drop across the wet      measurement device       must be accurate
                                        scrubber.                during the MPO stack     within plus or minus 1
                                                                 PM performance test.     percent; you must
                                                                                          collect the pressure
                                                                                          drop data during the
                                                                                          period of the
                                                                                          performance test and
                                                                                          determine the average
                                                                                          level.
15. Each stack emissions source from   Establish the operating  Data from the liquid     The continuous
 an MPO subject to a PM or opacity      limit for the average    flow rate measurement    scrubbing liquid flow
 limit, which uses a wet scrubber.      liquid flow rate to      device during the MPO    rate measuring device
                                        the scrubber.            stack PM performance     must be accurate
                                                                 test.                    within plus or minus 1
                                                                                          percent; you must
                                                                                          collect the flow rate
                                                                                          data during the period
                                                                                          of the performance
                                                                                          test and determine the
                                                                                          operating limit
                                                                                          according to Sec.
                                                                                          63.7112(c).
16. Each fabric filter that controls   Conduct opacity          Method 9 in appendix A   The test duration must
 emissions from only an individual,     observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 1 hour
 enclosed, new or existing storage                               chapter.                 and you must obtain
 bin.                                                                                     ten 6-minute averages.
17. Fugitive emissions from any MPO    Conduct opacity          Method 9 in appendix A   The test duration must
 subject to an opacity limit.           observations.            to part 60 of this       be for at least 3
                                                                 chapter.                 hours, but the 3-hour
                                                                                          test may be reduced to
                                                                                          1 hour if 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.

[[Page 78082]]

 
18. Each building enclosing any MPO,   Conduct VE check.......  The specifications in    The performance test
 that is subject to a VE limit.                                  Sec.   63.7112(k)..      must be conducted
                                                                                          while all affected
                                                                                          materials processing
                                                                                          operations within the
                                                                                          building are
                                                                                          operating; the
                                                                                          performance test for
                                                                                          each affected building
                                                                                          must be at least 75
                                                                                          minutes, with each
                                                                                          side of the building
                                                                                          and roof being
                                                                                          observed for at least
                                                                                          15 minutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With
                            Operating Limits
  [You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each operating limit
  that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in
                             Sec.   63.7121]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    You must demonstrate
                                For the following        continuous
          For . . .            operating limit . .   compliance by . . .
                                        .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each lime kiln controlled  Maintain the 3-hour   Collecting the wet
 by a wet scrubber.            rolling average       scrubber operating
                               exhaust gas stream    according to all
                               pressure drop         applicable
                               across the wet        requirements in
                               scrubber greater      Sec.   63.7113 and
                               than or equal to      reducing the data
                               the pressure drop     according to Sec.
                               operating limit       63.7113(a);
                               established during    maintaining the 3-
                               the PM performance    hour rolling
                               test; and maintain    average exhaust gas
                               the 3-hour rolling    stream pressure
                               average scrubbing     drop across the wet
                               liquid flow rate      scrubber greater
                               greater than or       than or equal to
                               equal to the flow     the pressure drop
                               rate operating        operating limit
                               limit established     established during
                               during the            the PM performance
                               performance test.     test; and
                                                     maintaining the 3-
                                                     hour rolling
                                                     average scrubbing
                                                     liquid flow rate
                                                     greater than or
                                                     equal to the flow
                                                     rate operating
                                                     limit established
                                                     during the
                                                     performance test
                                                     (the continuous
                                                     scrubbing liquid
                                                     flow rate measuring
                                                     device must be
                                                     accurate, within +/-
                                                     1% and the
                                                     continuous pressure
                                                     drop measurement
                                                     hour rolling device
                                                     must be accurate
                                                     within +/-1%).
2. Each lime kiln or lime     a. Maintain and       (i) Operating the
 cooler equipped with a        operate the fabric    fabric filter or
 fabric filter and using a     filter or ESP such    ESP so that the
 bag leak detector, and each   that the bag leak     alarm on the bag
 lime kiln equipped with an    or PM detector        leak or PM
 ESP using a PM detector in    alarm,                detection system,
 lieu of ESP parameter         respectively, is      respectively, is
 monitoring.                   not activated and     not activated and
                               alarm condition       alarm condition
                               does not exist for    does not exist for
                               more than 5 percent   more than 5 percent
                               of the total          of the total
                               operating time in a   operating time in
                               6-month period.       each 6-month
                                                     reporting period;
                                                     and continuously
                                                     recording the
                                                     output from the bag
                                                     leak or PM
                                                     detection system.
                                                    (ii) Each time the
                                                     alarm sounds and
                                                     the owner or
                                                     operator initiates
                                                     corrective actions
                                                     within 1 hour of
                                                     the alarm, 1 hour
                                                     of alarm time will
                                                     be counted (if the
                                                     owner or operator
                                                     takes longer than 1
                                                     hour to initiate
                                                     corrective actions,
                                                     alarm time will be
                                                     counted as the
                                                     actual amount of
                                                     time taken by the
                                                     owner or operator
                                                     to initiate
                                                     corrective
                                                     actions); if
                                                     inspection of the
                                                     fabric filter or
                                                     ESP system
                                                     demonstrates that
                                                     no corrective
                                                     actions are
                                                     necessary, no alarm
                                                     time will be
                                                     counted.
3. Each lime kiln equipped    Maintain the 3-hour   Collecting the ESP
 with an ESP, except an ESP    rolling average       operating data
 monitoring PM with a PM       current and voltage   according to all
 detector or COMS.             input to each         applicable
                               electrical field of   requirements in
                               the ESP greater       Sec.   63.7113 and
                               than or equal to      reducing the data
                               the average current   according to Sec.
                               and voltage input     63.7113(a), and
                               to each field of      maintaining the 3-
                               the ESP established   hour rolling
                               during the            average voltage
                               performance test.     input and current
                                                     input to each field
                                                     greater than or
                                                     equal to voltage
                                                     input and current
                                                     input operating
                                                     limits for each
                                                     field established
                                                     during the
                                                     performance test.

[[Page 78083]]

 
4. Each stack emissions       Maintain the 3-hour   Collecting the wet
 source form a MPO subject     rolling average       scrubber operating
 to an opacity limit, which    exhaust gas stream    data according to
 is controlled by a wet        pressure drop         all applicable
 scrubber.                     across the wet        requirements in
                               scrubber greater      Sec.   63.7113 and
                               than or equal to      reducing the data
                               the pressure drop     according to Sec.
                               operating limit       63.7113(a);
                               established during    maintaining the 3-
                               the PM performance    hour rolling
                               test; and maintain    average exhaust gas
                               the 3-hour rolling    stream pressure
                               average scrubbing     drop across the wet
                               liquid flow rate      scrubber greater
                               greater than or       than or equal to
                               equal to the flow     the pressure drop
                               rate operating        operating limit
                               limit established     established during
                               during the            the PM performance
                               performance test.     test; and
                                                     maintaining the 3-
                                                     hour rolling
                                                     average scrubbing
                                                     liquid flow rate
                                                     greater than or
                                                     equal to the flow
                                                     rate operating
                                                     limit established
                                                     during the
                                                     performance test
                                                     (the continuous
                                                     scrubbing liquid
                                                     flow rate measuring
                                                     device must be
                                                     accurate within +/-
                                                     1% and the
                                                     continuous pressure
                                                     drop measurement
                                                     device must be
                                                     accurate within +/-
                                                     1%).
5. For each lime kiln or      a. Maintain and       i. Installing,
 lime cooler equipped with a   operate the fabric    maintaining,
 fabric filter or an ESP       filter or ESP such    calibrating and
 that uses a COMS as the       that the average      operating a COMS as
 monitoring device.            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.
                                                    ii. Collecting the
                                                     COMS data at a
                                                     frequency of at
                                                     least once every 15
                                                     seconds,
                                                     determining block
                                                     averages for each 6-
                                                     minute period and
                                                     demonstrating for
                                                     each 6-minute block
                                                     period the average
                                                     opacity does not
                                                     exceed 15 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Periodic Monitoring for Compliance
                with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits
   [You must periodically demonstrate compliance with each opacity and
 visible emission limit that applies to you, according to the following
                  table, as required in Sec.   63.7121]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following   You must demonstrate
          For . . .            emission limitation  ongoing compliance .
                                      . . .                  . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Each MPO subject to an     a. 7-15 percent       (i) Conducting a
 opacity limitation as         opacity, depending    monthly 1-minute VE
 required in Table 1 to this   on the materials      check of each
 subpart, or any vents from    processing            emission unit in
 buildings subject to an       operation, as         accordance with
 opacity limitation.           required in Table 1   Sec.   63.7121(e);
                               to this subpart.      the check must be
                                                     conducted while the
                                                     affected source is
                                                     in operation.
                                                    (ii) If no VE are
                                                     observed in 6
                                                     consecutive monthly
                                                     checks for any
                                                     emission unit, you
                                                     may decrease the
                                                     frequency of VE
                                                     checking from
                                                     monthly to semi-
                                                     annually for that
                                                     emission unit; if
                                                     VE are observed
                                                     during any
                                                     semiannual check,
                                                     you must resume VE
                                                     checking of that
                                                     emission unit on a
                                                     monthly basis and
                                                     maintain that
                                                     schedule until no
                                                     VE are observed in
                                                     6 consecutive
                                                     monthly checks.
                                                    (iii) If no VE are
                                                     observed during the
                                                     semiannual check
                                                     for any emission
                                                     unit, you may
                                                     decrease the
                                                     frequency of VE
                                                     checking from semi-
                                                     annually to
                                                     annually for that
                                                     emission unit; if
                                                     VE are observed
                                                     during any annual
                                                     check, you must
                                                     resume VE checking
                                                     of that emission
                                                     unit on a monthly
                                                     basis and maintain
                                                     that schedule until
                                                     no VE are observed
                                                     in 6 consecutive
                                                     monthly checks.

[[Page 78084]]

 
                                                    (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                         monthly VE check of
 6 of Table 1 to this                                the building, in
 subpart.                                            accordance with the
                                                     specifications in
                                                     Sec.   63.7112(k);
                                                     the check must be
                                                     conducted while all
                                                     the enclosed
                                                     according MPO are
                                                     in operation.
                                                    (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.
                                                    (iv) If no VE are
                                                     observed during the
                                                     semi-annual check,
                                                     you may decrease
                                                     the frequency of
                                                     checking from semi-
                                                     annually to
                                                     annually for that
                                                     affected source;
                                                     and if VE are
                                                     observed during any
                                                     annual check, you
                                                     must resume
                                                     checking of that
                                                     emission unit on a
                                                     monthly basis and
                                                     maintain that
                                                     schedule until no
                                                     VE are observed in
                                                     6 consecutive
                                                     monthly checks (the
                                                     source is in
                                                     compliance if no VE
                                                     are observed during
                                                     any of these
                                                     checks).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Requirements for Reports
   [You must submit each report in this table that applies to you, as
                       required in Sec.   63.7131]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 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   ....................
                               periods during
                               which the CMS,
                               including the
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring systems,
                               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      ....................
                               deviation from any
                               emission limitation
                               (emission limit,
                               operating limit,
                               opacity limit, and
                               VE) during the
                               reporting period,
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(c).
                              d. If there were      ....................
                               periods during
                               which the CMS,
                               including the
                               operating parameter
                               monitoring systems,
                               was out-of-control,
                               as specified in
                               Sec.   63.8(c)(7),
                               the report must
                               contain the
                               information in Sec.
                                 63.7131(e).

[[Page 78085]]

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


           Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA
     [You must comply with the applicable General Provisions requirements according to the following table]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Am I subject to this
               Citation                 Summary of requirement        requirement?             Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(4).......................  Applicability..........  Yes.
63.1(a)(5)...........................  .......................  No.
63.1(a)(6)...........................  Applicability..........  Yes.
63.1(a)(7)-(a)(9)....................  .......................  No.
63.1(a)(10)-(a)(14)..................  Applicability..........  Yes....................
63.1(b)(1)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes....................  Sec.  Sec.   63.7081
                                        Determination.                                    and 63.7142 specify
                                                                                          additional
                                                                                          applicability
                                                                                          determination
                                                                                          requirements.
63.1(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.
63.1(b)(3)...........................  Initial Applicability    Yes.
                                        Determination.
63.1(c)(1)...........................  Applicability After      Yes.
                                        Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)...........................  Permit Requirements....  No.....................  Area sources not
                                                                                          subject to subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA, except all
                                                                                          sources must make
                                                                                          initial applicability
                                                                                          determination.
63.1(c)(3)...........................  .......................  No.....................
63.1(c)(4)-(5).......................  Extensions,              Yes.
                                        Notifications.
63.1(d)..............................  .......................  No.
63.1(e)..............................  Applicability of Permit  Yes.
                                        Program.
63.2.................................  Definitions............  .......................  Additional definition
                                                                                          in Sec.   63.7143.
63.3(a)-(c)..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Yes.
63.4(a)(1)-(a)(2)....................  Prohibited Activities..  Yes.
63.4(a)(3)-(a)(5)....................  .......................  No.
63.4(b)-(c)..........................  Circumvention,           Yes.
                                        Severability.
63.5(a)(1)-(2).......................  Construction/            Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(b)(1)...........................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes.
63.5(b)(2)...........................  .......................  No.
63.5(b)(3)-(4).......................  Construction Approval,   Yes.
                                        Applicability.
63.5(b)(5)...........................  .......................  No.
63.5(b)(6)...........................  Applicability..........  Yes.
63.5(c)..............................  .......................  No.
63.5(d)(1)-(4).......................  Approval of              Yes.
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(e)..............................  Approval of              Yes.
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)-(2).......................  Approval of              Yes.
                                        Construction/
                                        Reconstruction.
63.6(a)..............................  Compliance for           Yes.
                                        Standards and
                                        Maintenance.
63.6(b)(1)-(5).......................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes.
63.6(b)(6)...........................  .......................  No.
63.6(b)(7)...........................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes.
63.6(c)(1)-(2).......................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes.
63.6(c)(3)-(c)(4)....................  .......................  No.
63.6(c)(5)...........................  Compliance Dates.......  Yes.
63.6(d)..............................  .......................  No.
63.6(e)(1)...........................  Operation & Maintenance  Yes....................  See also Sec.   63.7100
                                                                                          for OM&M requirements.
63.6(e)(2)...........................  .......................  No.
63.6(e)(3)...........................  Startup, Shutdown        Yes.
                                        Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(3).......................  Compliance with          Yes.
                                        Emission Standards.
63.6(g)(1)-(g)(3)....................  Alternative Standard...  Yes.
63.6(h)(1)-(2).......................  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes....................
63.6(h)(3)...........................  .......................  No.

[[Page 78086]]

 
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.
63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iii).................  Opacity/VE Standards...  No.....................  Test durations are
                                                                                          specified in subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA; subpart AAAAA
                                                                                          takes precedence.
63.6(h)(5)(iv).......................  Opacity/VE Standards...  No.
63.6(h)(5)(v)........................  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes.
63.6(h)(6)...........................  Opacity/VE Standards...  Yes.
63.6(h)(7)...........................  COM Use................  No.....................  No COM required under
                                                                                          subpart AAAAA.
63.6(h)(8)...........................  Compliance with Opacity  Yes.
                                        and VE.
63.6(h)(9)...........................  Adjustment of Opacity    Yes.
                                        Limit.
63.6(i)(1)-(i)(14)...................  Extension of Compliance  Yes.
63.6(i)(15)..........................  .......................  No.
63.6(i)(16)..........................  Extension of Compliance  Yes.
63.6(j)..............................  Exemption from           Yes.
                                        Compliance.
63.7(a)(1)-(a)(3)....................  Performance Testing      Yes....................  Sec.   63.7110
                                        Requirements.                                     specifies deadlines;
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7112 has
                                                                                          additional specific
                                                                                          requirements.
63.7(b)..............................  Notification...........  Yes.
63.7(c)..............................  Quality Assurance/Test   Yes.
                                        Plan.
63.7(d)..............................  Testing Facilities.....  Yes.
63.7(e)(1)-(4).......................  Conduct of Tests.......  Yes.
63.7(f)..............................  Alternative Test Method  Yes.
63.7(g)..............................  Data Analysis..........  Yes.
63.7(h)..............................  Waiver of Tests........  Yes.
63.8(a)(1)...........................  Monitoring Requirements  Yes....................  See also Sec.
                                                                                          63.7113.
63.8(a)(2)...........................  Monitoring.............  Yes.
63.8(a)(3)...........................  .......................  No.
63.8(a)(4)...........................  Monitoring.............  No.....................  Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3).......................  Conduct of Monitoring..  Yes.
63.8(c)(1)-(3).......................  CMS Operation/           Yes.
                                        Maintenance.
63.8(c)(4)...........................  CMS Requirements.......  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7121.
63.8(c)(4)(i)-(ii)...................  Cycle Time for COM and   No.....................  No COM or CEMS are
                                        CEMS.                                             required under subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA; see Sec.
                                                                                          63.7113 for CPMS
                                                                                          requirements.
63.8(c)(5)...........................  Minimum COM procedures.  No                       COM not required.
63.8(c)(6)...........................  CMS Requirements.......  No                       See Sec.   63.7113.
63.8(c)(7)-(8).......................  CMS Requirements.......  Yes.
63.8(d)..............................  Quality Control........  No.....................  See Sec.   63.7113.
63.8(e)..............................  Performance Evaluation   No.
                                        for CMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(f)(5)....................  Alternative Monitoring   Yes.
                                        Method.
63.8(f)(6)...........................  Alternative to Relative  No.
                                        Accuracy test.
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.
63.9(a)..............................  Notification             Yes....................  See also Sec.   63.7130
                                        Requirements.
63.9(b)..............................  Initial Notifications..  Yes.
63.9(c)..............................  Request for Compliance   Yes.
                                        Extension.
63.9(d)..............................  New Source Notification  Yes.
                                        for Special Compliance
                                        Requirements.
63.9(e)..............................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        Performance Test.
63.9(f)..............................  Notification of VE/      Yes....................  This requirement only
                                        Opacity Test.                                     applies to opacity and
                                                                                          VE performance tests
                                                                                          required in Table 4 to
                                                                                          subpart AAAAA.
                                                                                          Notification not
                                                                                          required for VE/
                                                                                          opacity test under
                                                                                          Table 6 to subpart
                                                                                          AAAAA.
63.9(g)..............................  Additional CMS           No.....................  Not required for
                                        Notifications.                                    operating parameter
                                                                                          monitoring.
63.9(h)(1)-(h)(3)....................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(h)(4)...........................  .......................  No.....................
63.9(h)(5)-(h)(6)....................  Notification of          Yes.
                                        Compliance Status.
63.9(i)..............................  Adjustment of Deadlines  Yes.
63.9(j)..............................  Change in Previous       Yes.
                                        Information.
63.10(a).............................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Yes....................  See Sec.  Sec.
                                        General Requirements.                             63.7131 through
                                                                                          63.7133.
63.10(b)(1)-(b)(2)(xii)..............  Records................  Yes.
63.10(b)(2)(xiii)....................  Records for Relative     No.
                                        Accuracy Test.
63.10(b)(2)(xiv).....................  Records for              Yes.
                                        Notification.
63.10(b)(3)..........................  Applicability            Yes.
                                        Determinations.
63.10(c).............................  Additional CMS           No.....................  See Sec.   63.7132.
                                        Recordkeeping.
63.10(d)(1)..........................  General Reporting        Yes.
                                        Requirements.

[[Page 78087]]

 
63.10(d)(2)..........................  Performance Test         Yes.
                                        Results.
63.10(d)(3)..........................  Opacity or VE            Yes....................  For the periodic
                                        Observations.                                     monitoring
                                                                                          requirements in Table
                                                                                          6 to subpart AAAAA,
                                                                                          report according to
                                                                                          Sec.   63.10(d)(3)
                                                                                          only if VE observed
                                                                                          and subsequent visual
                                                                                          opacity test is
                                                                                          required.
63.10(d)(4)..........................  Progress Reports.......  Yes.
63.10(d)(5)..........................  Startup, Shutdown,       Yes.
                                        Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e).............................  Additional CMS Reports.  No.....................  See specific
                                                                                          requirements in
                                                                                          subpart AAAAA, see
                                                                                          Sec.   63.7131.
63.10(f).............................  Waiver for               Yes.
                                        Recordkeeping/
                                        Reporting.
63.11(a)-(b).........................  Control Device           No.....................  Flares not applicable.
                                        Requirements.
63.12(a)-(c).........................  State Authority and      Yes.
                                        Delegations.
63.13(a)-(c).........................  State/Regional           Yes.
                                        Addresses.
63.14(a)-(b).........................  Incorporation by         Yes.                     ASTM 6420-99 and 6735-
                                        Reference.                                        01 (see Sec.   63.14).
63.15(a)-(b).........................  Availability of          Yes....................
                                        Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-31233 Filed 12-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P