National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: April 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 66)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16613-16624]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05ap02-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7168-1]
RIN 2060-AE78

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on targeted amendments
to the national emission standards for the portland cement
manufacturing industry promulgated on June 14, 1999 under the authority
of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The amendments make
improvements to the implementation of the emission standards, primarily
in the areas of applicability, testing, and monitoring to resolve
issues and questions raised since promulgation of the rule.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on July 5, 2002 without
further notice, unless significant adverse comments are received by May
6, 2002.
If significant material adverse comments are received by May 6,
2002, this direct final rule will be withdrawn and the comments
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule
published elsewhere in this issue. If no significant material adverse
comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal
and this direct final rule will become effective on July 5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in
duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-53, U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person or by
courier, deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket Number
A-92-53, Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA requests that a separate copy also be sent to the contact
person listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Wood, P.E., Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (C504-05),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5446,
facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address:
wood.joe@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. We are publishing this direct
final rule without prior proposal because we view the amendments as
noncontroversial and do not anticipate adverse comments. We anticipate
no adverse comment because EPA received no adverse comment when we
published a document in the Federal Register on the settlement
agreement relating to these amendments (66 FR 50643, October 4, 2001).
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to amend
the emissions standards for the portland cement manufacturing industry
promulgated on June 14, 1999, if adverse comments are filed.
If we receive any relevant adverse comments on one or more distinct
amendments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public which provisions will become effective and which
provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We will address
all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed
rule. Any of the distinct amendments in today's rule for which we do
not receive adverse comment will become effective on the date set out
above. We will not institute a second comment period on this direct
final rule. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
information considered by EPA in the development of this direct final
rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout
the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow
members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated rules and
their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in
the case of judicial review. The docket number for this rulemaking is
A-92-53.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at
EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those that manufacture portland cement. Regulated categories and
entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS SIC entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... 32731.................. 3241.................. Owners or operators of
portland cement
manufacturing plants.
State.............................. 32731.................. 3241.................. Owners or operators of
portland cement
manufacturing plants.
Tribal associations................ 32731.................. 3241.................. Owners or operators of
portland cement
manufacturing plants.
Federal agencies................... None................... None.................. None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility, company, business organization, etc., is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1340 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of this direct final rule is available only by filing a petition
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by June 4, 2002. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to this direct final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this direct final rule may not be

[[Page 16615]]

challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by
the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to this direct final rule.

I. Background
II. Amendments to the NESHAP
A. Applicability and Designation of Affected Sources
B. Operating Limits for Kilns and In-line Kiln/Raw Mills
C. Performance Testing Requirements
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. PM and Opacity Compliance Waiver During PM CEM Testing
F. Compliance Dates
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

On June 14, 1999, we published in the Federal Register the final
rule entitled, ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry'' (40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLL). The American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA)
petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit for review of the final rule under section 307(b)(1)
of the CAA. (See 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1).) The APCA and the EPA negotiated
and have agreed to the terms of a Settlement Agreement and its
implementation.
The action taken today is consistent with the terms of the
Settlement Agreement and reflects EPA's judgment that these amendments
improve the rule's implementation. Today's action makes specific
changes to the NESHAP for the portland cement manufacturing industry,
generally relating to applicability, performance testing, and
monitoring.
The portland cement NESHAP contains emission limitations for
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted by portland cement manufacturing
sources. In a separate action, some of those emission limitations were
remanded to EPA by the court in National Lime Association v. EPA, 233
F. 3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Today's direct final rule does not deal
with any of the issues which were remanded to EPA, rather, the direct
final rule amends certain provisions of the final rule dealing largely
with issues of implementation.

II. Amendments to the NESHAP

A. Applicability and Designation of Affected Sources

A ``bin'' is one of the affected sources listed in Sec. 63.1340 of
the final rule, i.e., a source of emissions that is subject to
emissions standards in the rule. The term is not defined in the rule,
which leads to potential confusion. We are, therefore, adding a
definition of ``bin'' to clarify the applicability of the rule. We
define ``bin'' as a manmade enclosure for storage of raw materials,
clinker, or finished product prior to the further processing of these
materials at a portland cement plant.
Today's action revises Sec. 63.1340(c) of the final rule to clarify
that primary and secondary crushers are not subject to the final rule
regardless of their location in the production line relative to raw
material storage. This was the intent of the final rule. (See 63 FR
14194, March 24, 1998 and 64 FR 31900, June 14, 1999.) However,
portland cement manufacturers pointed out that the provision, as it
appears in the final rule, could be interpreted to apply to crushers if
they follow raw material storage:

* * * The primary and secondary crushers and any other equipment
of the on-site nonmetallic mineral processing plant which precedes
the raw material storage are not subject to this subpart.* * *

Portland cement manufacturers pointed out that crushers may follow the
raw material storage in the production line. We did not intend that the
final rule apply to crushers because we wanted to maintain consistency
with 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for the portland cement industry. We are, therefore, amending
the final rule to clarify that primary and secondary crushers are not
covered by the final rule regardless of their location relative to raw
material storage.
Section 63.1356 of the final rule is being revised to clarify that
the systems used to convey and transfer coal from the coal mill to the
kiln at portland cement plants that are major sources of HAP are not
subject to the NSPS for coal preparation plants (40 CFR part 60,
subpart Y). The final portland cement NESHAP already cover conveying
system transfer points associated with coal preparation plants at
portland cement plants that are major sources. There is no need for
these sources to be subject to duplicative requirements, i.e., to also
be covered by the NSPS for coal preparation plants. Further, these
emission sources will be subject to more stringent opacity requirements
(10 percent) under the NESHAP than under the NSPS for coal preparation
plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart Y). Other coal conveying transfer
points will continue to be subject to the NSPS for coal preparation
plants.
The list of affected sources in Sec. 63.1340(b)(7) of the final
rule is being amended to clarify that coal conveying system transfer
points associated with conveying of coal from the mill to the kiln are
included as affected sources.
Section 63.1356(a) of the final rule is being revised to clarify
that in exempting affected sources subject to the portland cement
NESHAP from duplicative requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subpart F,
it was not our intention that these sources would then become affected
sources under the requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO (NSPS for
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants). The requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart OOO may apply to certain sources at a portland cement plant
depending on whether or not 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, applies to that
source. In particular, 40 CFR 60.670(b) states that if an emission
source is subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart F, or follows in the plant
process a source that is subject to subpart F, then 40 CFR part 60,
subpart OOO does not apply to that source. The purpose of
Sec. 63.1356(a) of the final rule is to avoid having a source that is
subject to certain requirements under this subpart also be subject to
the same requirements under 40 CFR part 60, subparts F or OOO.
The list of affected sources in the portland cement NESHAP is being
amended by combining into one paragraph the affected sources, ``bagging
system'' and ``bulk loading or unloading system,'' making the rule
language consistent with the NSPS for portland cement plants (40 CFR
part 60, subpart F).

B. Operating Limits for Kilns and In-line Kiln/Raw Mills

Section 63.1344(a)(3) of the final rule is being revised to
indicate that the operating limit for gas stream temperature pertaining
to the inlet to the alkali bypass particulate matter (PM) control
device may be established during a performance test either with or
without the raw mill being in operation.

[[Page 16616]]

This revision provides additional flexibility in that the test for
dioxin/furan (D/F) emissions from the alkali bypass may be conducted
whether the raw mill is operating or not since D/F emissions in the
alkali bypass are not affected by the operation of the raw mill. Alkali
bypass emissions are not affected by the operation of the raw mill
since the alkali bypass gas stream does not pass through the raw mill.

C. Performance Testing Requirements

Today's direct final rule revises the performance testing
requirements in 40 CFR 63.1349(e) to clarify conditions under which
changes in operation will require repeat performance testing. This
revision provides a more understandable description of the criteria for
determining when the performance tests need to be repeated. In the
current final rule, a new performance test is required if there is a
``significant change in feed or fuel from that used in the previous
performance test.'' Under today's amendments, a new test is required if
a change in operations may adversely affect compliance. This allows
sources the flexibility to make changes in their kiln's operation
without having to retest (and establish new temperature operating
limits for D/F) if the change will not adversely affect compliance.
Further, if the operational change will only adversely affect
compliance with one of the pollutant emission limits (for example, PM,
but not D/F), then the source will only be required to retest for that
one pollutant. This amendment may be less costly to industry (e.g.,
test only if compliance may be adversely affected versus test after any
significant change in feed or fuels, which is largely pointless if
compliance is not adversely affected), while being at least equally
protective. This amendment is also consistent with and reaffirms
Sec. 63.7(e) of the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A,
which states that performance tests must be conducted under
representative conditions.
Section 63.1349(e) of the final rule is further amended by adding
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv). This amendment will allow a source
that is required to conduct a new performance test under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section to operate under the planned operational change
conditions for a period not to exceed 360 hours, provided that certain
conditions are met. This amendment allows the source sufficient time to
(1) equilibrate the operation of the kiln after the change has occurred
(which could take days), (2) conduct any emissions checks (pretests)
prior to the actual performance test, and (3) conduct the actual
performance test. The time required to conduct a performance test could
exceed 1 week, especially if both PM and D/F tests are to be conducted,
and if both the main and alkali bypass stacks need to be tested.
However, the 360-hour waiver is allowed only if certain requirements
are met. If the source is conducting a D/F test to reestablish a new
temperature operating limit, the source must submit temperature
monitoring data for the entire pretest period and document the results
of the performance test. Prior notice must be given to the
Administrator of the planned change and once the planned operational
period begins, the source must conduct and complete the performance
test within 360 hours. The requirement that the source must actually
conduct the performance test prevents a source from falsely claiming an
operational change is needed in order to obtain the 360-hour waiver.
Today's direct final rule amends Sec. 63.1349(b) of the final rule
to require performance testing under ``representative'' conditions
rather than under ``the highest load or capacity reasonably expected to
occur.'' This amendment makes the NESHAP consistent with the General
Provisions' requirements (cited above) that performance tests be
conducted under representative conditions. The implication of this
amendment is that the performance test should be conducted at the
highest production rate at which the kiln normally would operate. If
the kiln is operated under a condition not representative of the
condition during the performance test, e.g., the kiln is operated at a
production rate higher than the production rate at which it was tested,
the performance test will need to be re-conducted and temperature
limit(s) reestablished. This is in accordance with today's amendments
to 40 CFR 63.1349(e) which state that a new performance test is
required if a change in operations may adversely affect compliance.
Today's action amends Sec. 63.1349(b)(3) of the final rule to allow
the D/F performance test of an alkali bypass associated with an in-line
kiln/raw mill to be conducted either with the raw mill operating or
with the raw mill not operating. This amendment is consistent with the
amendment to Sec. 63.1344(a)(3) (discussed earlier) allowing the
operating limit affecting the temperature at the inlet to the alkali
bypass PM control device to be established either with the raw mill
operating or with the raw mill not operating. This will provide greater
flexibility since D/F emissions in the alkali bypass are not affected
by the operation of the raw mill.

D. Monitoring Requirements

Corresponding to the amendments requiring that performance tests be
conducted under representative performance conditions, paragraphs
(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e) of 40 CFR 63.1350 are being amended to
require that the daily manual observations of opacity or visible
emissions (VE) be conducted under representative performance conditions
as well.
Section 63.1350(k) of the final rule requires affected sources to
install PM continuous emission monitors (CEM). However, as noted in the
Settlement Agreement, we agreed to state in this preamble that
Sec. 63.1350(k) of the final rule currently requires sources to install
PM CEM, but does not specify a deadline by which sources would be
required to comply with this requirement.
We are amending the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(e)(2) of the final
rule to conduct follow-up VE tests when VE were observed previously.
This amendment allows the source to have 2 consecutive calendar days of
visible emissions prior to having to conduct a follow-up test by Method
9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). The final rule as promulgated requires
a Method 9 test be conducted within 24 hours for a particular raw or
finish mill if VE are observed during the daily test by Method 22 (40
CFR part 60, appendix A). We agree with industry that this may be
overly burdensome since the presence of VE does not necessarily
indicate whether a source is in violation of the 10 percent opacity
limit. Further, if VE are observed, corrective action may be taken by
the source to eliminate the emissions prior to the subsequent Method 22
test and, thereby, eliminate the emissions and avoid having to do a
more costly Method 9 test.
Section 63.1350 of the final rule is being amended to give sources
the option of installing continuous monitoring systems on raw mills and
finish mills in place of daily Method 22 testing, which is required in
the final rule. This amendment allows a source the option to use
continuous monitoring equipment (e.g., continuous opacity monitors or
bag leak detectors) in lieu of the manual measurement (Method 22) of VE
and opacity. We believe that these continuous monitoring options are
just as effective in demonstrating compliance as the currently required
manual methods. Some sources may prefer to use these instruments in
lieu of daily visual monitoring.

[[Page 16617]]

We are revising the requirements of Sec. 63.1350(a)(4) of the final
rule so that Method 22 VE monitoring is not required for conveying
system transfer points if they are totally enclosed. This amendment
eliminates the need for VE monitoring at totally enclosed transfer
points, since we expect minimal VE from such transfer points. As
indicated in the Settlement Agreement with the APCA, ``the enclosures
for these transfer points shall be operated and maintained as total
enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with the facility
operations and maintenance plan.'' The other amendments to
Sec. 63.1350(a)(4) provide procedures for monitoring of VE for transfer
points inside buildings.
We are also revising Table 1 to subpart LLL to clarify that
Sec. 63.6(h)(7) of the NESHAP General Provisions applies to the final
rule. The EPA inadvertently omitted this table entry from the final
rule.

E. PM and Opacity Compliance Waiver During PM CEM Testing

Section 63.1357 of the final rule specifies the conditions under
which an owner or operator is exempt from compliance with PM and
opacity standards for the purpose of conducting tests to correlate PM
CEM with manual method results. The final rule provides a 96-hour
waiver from compliance. For sources that do choose to use a PM CEM, we
are clarifying that they may petition us for additional time for the
waiver from the PM and opacity limits during the correlation testing if
additional time is needed to finish the PM CEM correlation testing.

F. Compliance Dates

Section 63.1351 of the final rule is being revised to correct
erroneous compliance deadlines specified in the final rule. This
amendment adds a few more days to the compliance date to give an
existing source a full 3 years to comply with the standards. We are
also changing the compliance date for new sources to coincide with the
publication date of the final rule in the Federal Register.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
standards 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 entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations 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, it has been
determined that these amendments do not constitute a ``significant
regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria.
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA 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.''
The rule amendments do not have federalism implications. They 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, because State and local
governments do not own or operate any sources that would be subject to
the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
direct final rule.

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

Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 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 final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because
tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to the
amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1)
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must 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 the Agency.
This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and because it is based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

This direct final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

F. 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, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to 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 the EPA

[[Page 16618]]

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 the EPA 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 the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that this direct final rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year, nor does the direct final rule
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations
upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to this
direct final rule.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, As Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 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.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The
amendments in today's rule make improvements to the emission standards,
primarily by clarifying issues in the areas of applicability, testing,
and monitoring. We have therefore concluded that today's final rule
will have no adverse impacts on any small entities and may relieve
burden in some cases.
Although the direct final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we worked with
portland cement industry, including small entities, throughout the
rulemaking process. Meetings were held on a regular basis with industry
representatives in connection with the settlement agreement, to discuss
the development of the direct final rule, exchange information, and
solicit comments on final rule requirements.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in the final rule were
submitted to and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0416. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1801.02) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, by
email at farmer.sandy@epamail.epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A
copy may also be downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/
icr.
Today's action makes clarifying changes to the promulgated rule and
imposes no new information collection requirements on industry. Because
only clarifying changes are being made, there is no additional burden
on industry as a result of this direct final rule and the ICR has not
been revised.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory 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, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Because today's action contains no new test methods, sampling
procedures or other technical standards, there is no need to consider
the availability of voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This direct final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This direct
final rule will be effective on July 5, 2002, unless significant
adverse comments are received by May 6, 2002.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 28, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

[[Page 16619]]

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

Subpart LLL--[Amended]

2. Section 63.1340 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(7) and
(8), deleting paragraph (b)(9), and revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1340 Applicability and designation of affected sources.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(7) Each conveying system transfer point including those associated
with coal preparation used to convey coal from the mill to the kiln at
any portland cement plant which is a major source; and
(8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any
portland cement plant which is a major source.
(c) For portland cement plants with on-site nonmetallic mineral
processing facilities, the first affected source in the sequence of
materials handling operations subject to this subpart is the raw
material storage, which is just prior to the raw mill. Any equipment of
the on-site nonmetallic mineral processing plant which precedes the raw
material storage is not subject to this subpart. In addition, the
primary and secondary crushers of the on-site nonmetallic mineral
processing plant, regardless of whether they precede the raw material
storage, are 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 to the raw mill.
* * * * *

3. Section 63.1341 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the
definition for the term Bin to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1341 Definitions.

* * * * *
Bin means a manmade enclosure for storage of raw materials,
clinker, or finished product prior to further processing at a portland
cement plant.
* * * * *

4. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:

Sec. 63.1344 Operating limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.

(a) * * *
(3) If the in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass,
the applicable temperature limit for the alkali bypass specified in
paragraph (b) of this section and established during the performance
test, with or without the raw mill operating, is not exceeded.
* * * * *

5. Section 63.1349 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i),
(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(3)(i), (e), and Table 1 to Sec. 63.1349 to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Method 5 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter shall be used
to determine PM emissions. Each performance test shall consist of three
separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source
is operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance
with Sec. 63.7(e). Each run shall be conducted for at least 1 hour, and
the minimum sample volume shall be 0.85 dscm (30 dscf). The average of
the three runs shall be used to determine compliance. A determination
of the PM collected in the impingers (``back half'') of the Method 5
particulate sampling train is not required to demonstrate initial
compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. However, this shall
not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination of
the ``back half'' for other purposes.
* * * * *
(2) The owner or operator of any affected source subject to
limitations on opacity under this subpart that is not subject to
paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the affected source opacity limit by conducting a test in
accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The
performance test shall be conducted under the conditions that exist
when the affected source is operating at the representative performance
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). The maximum 6-minute
average opacity exhibited during the test period shall be used to
determine whether the affected source is in initial compliance with the
standard. The duration of the Method 9 performance test shall be 3
hours (30 6-minute averages), except that the duration of the Method 9
performance test may be reduced to 1 hour if the conditions of
paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section apply:
* * * * *
(3) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on D/F emissions under this subpart shall demonstrate
initial compliance with the D/F emission limit by conducting a
performance test using Method 23 of appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter. The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall
demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests
while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal
operating conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is not operating. The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/
raw mill equipped with an alkali bypass shall conduct simultaneous
performance tests of the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the
alkali bypass. However, the owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw
mill may conduct a performance test of the alkali bypass exhaust when
the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is operating or not
operating.
(i) Each performance test shall consist of three separate runs;
each run shall be conducted under the conditions that exist when the
affected source is operating at the representative performance
conditions in accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). The duration of each run
shall be at least 3 hours, and the sample volume for each run shall be
at least 2.5 dscm (90 dscf). The concentration shall be determined for
each run, and the arithmetic average of the concentrations measured for
the three runs shall be calculated and used to determine compliance.
* * * * *
(e)(1) If a source plans to undertake a change in operations that
may adversely affect compliance with an applicable D/F standard under
this subpart, the source must conduct a performance test and establish
new temperature limit(s) as specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(2) If a source plans to undertake a change in operations that may
adversely affect compliance with an applicable PM standard under
Sec. 63.1343, the source must conduct a performance test as specified
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) In preparation for and while conducting a performance test
required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a source may operate
under the planned operational change conditions for a period not to
exceed 360 hours, provided that the conditions in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section are met. The source shall submit
temperature and other monitoring data that are recorded during the
pretest operations.
(i) The source must provide the Administrator written notice at
least 60 days prior to undertaking an operational change that may
adversely affect compliance with an applicable standard

[[Page 16620]]

under this subpart, or as soon as practicable where 60 days advance
notice is not feasible. Notice provided under this paragraph shall
include a description of the planned change, the emissions standards
that may be affected by the change, and a schedule for completion of
the performance test required under paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
including when the planned operational change period would begin.
(ii) The performance test results must be documented in a test
report according to paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) A test plan must be made available to the Administrator prior
to testing, if requested.
(iv) The performance test must be conducted, and it must be
completed within 360 hours after the planned operational change period
begins.
* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec. 63.1349.--Summary of Performance Test Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Affected source and pollutant Performance test
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New and existing kiln and in-line kiln/ EPA Method 5 a.
raw mil b c PM.
New and existing kiln and in-line kiln/ COM if feasibled e or EPA
raw mill b c Opacity. Method 9 visual opacity
readings.
New and existing kiln and in-line kiln/ EPA Method 23 h.
raw mill b c f g D/F.
New greenfield kiln and in-line kiln/raw THC CEM (EPA PS-8A) i.
mill c THC.
New and existing clinker cooler PM...... EPA Method 5 a.
New and existing clinker cooler opacity. COM d j or EPA Method 9 visual
opacity readings.
New and existing raw and finish mill EPA Method 9 a j.
opacity.
New and existing raw material dryer and EPA Method 9 a j.
materials handling processes (raw
material storage, clinker storage,
finished product storage, conveyor
transfer points, bagging, and bulk
loading and unloading systems) opacity.
New greenfield raw material dryer THC... THC CEM (EPA PS-8A) i.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Required initially and every 5 years thereafter.
b Includes main exhaust and alkali bypass.
c In-line kiln/raw mill to be tested with and without raw mill in
operation.
d Must meet COM performance specification criteria. If the fabric filter
or electrostatic precipitator has multiple stacks, daily EPA Method 9
visual opacity readings may be taken instead of using a COM.
e Opacity limit is 20 percent.
f Alkali bypass is tested with the raw mill operating or not operating.
g Temperature and (if applicable) activated carbon injection parameters
determined separately with and without the raw mill operating.
h Required initially and every 30 months thereafter.
i EPA Performance Specification (PS)-8A of appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter.
j Opacity limit is 10 percent.

6. Section 63.1350 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(4)(v) through (a)(4)(vii);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i);
d. Revising paragraphs (e) and (e)(2);
e. Redesignating paragraph (m) as paragraph (n) and adding a new
paragraph (m); and
f. Revising Table 1 to Sec. 63.1350.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.

(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions
monitoring under this paragraph shall not apply to any totally enclosed
conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the
transfer point. ``Totally enclosed conveying system transfer point''
shall mean a conveying system transfer point that is enclosed on all
sides, top, and bottom.
(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system
transfer point is located in a building, the owner or operator of the
portland cement plant shall have the option to conduct a Method 22
visible emissions monitoring test according to the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section for each such
conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the
building itself (according to paragraph (a)(4)(vii) of this section).
(vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section apply
to the monitoring of the building, and you must also do the following:
Test visible emissions from each side, roof and vent of the building
for at least 1 minute. The test must be conducted under normal
operating conditions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in
accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). The duration of the Method 9 test shall
be at least 30 minutes each day.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in
accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). The duration of the Method 9 test shall
be at least 30 minutes each day.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator of a raw mill or finish mill shall
monitor opacity by conducting daily visual emissions observations of
the mill sweep and air separator PMCD of these affected sources in
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 22 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). The duration of the Method 22 test shall
be 6 minutes. If visible emissions are observed during any Method 22
visible emissions test, the owner or operator must:
* * * * *
(2) Within 24 hours of the end of the Method 22 test in which
visible emissions were observed, conduct a followup Method 22 test of
each stack from which visible emissions were observed during the
previous Method 22

[[Page 16621]]

test. If visible emissions are observed during the followup Method 22
test from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during
the previous Method 22 test, conduct a visual opacity test of each
stack from which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22
test in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this
chapter. The duration of the Method 9 test shall be 30 minutes.
* * * * *
(m) The requirements under paragraph (e) of this section to conduct
daily Method 22 testing shall not apply to any specific raw mill or
finish mill equipped with a continuous opacity monitor COM or bag leak
detection system (BLDS). If the owner or operator chooses to install a
COM in lieu of conducting the daily visual emissions testing required
under paragraph (e) of this section, then the COM must be installed at
the outlet of the PM control device of the raw mill or finish mill, and
the COM must be installed, maintained, calibrated, and operated as
required by the general provisions in subpart A of this part and
according to PS-1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. To remain
in compliance, the opacity must be maintained such that the 6-minute
average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 10
percent. If the average opacity for any 6-minute block period exceeds
10 percent, this shall constitute a violation of the standard. If the
owner or operator chooses to install a BLDS in lieu of conducting the
daily visual emissions testing required under paragraph (e) of this
section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (9) of this
section apply to each BLDS:
(1) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of
detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ``Certify''
shall mean that the instrument manufacturer has tested the instrument
on gas streams having a range of particle size distributions and
confirmed by means of valid filterable PM tests that the minimum
detectable concentration limit is at or below 10 milligrams per actual
cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
(2) The sensor on the BLDS must provide output of relative PM
emissions.
(3) The BLDS must have an alarm that will activate automatically
when it detects a significant increase in relative PM emissions greater
than a preset level.
(4) The presence of an alarm condition should be clearly apparent
to facility operating personnel.
(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) All BLDS must be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained
so that they are based on the manufacturer's written specifications and
recommendations. The EPA recommends that where appropriate, the
standard operating procedures manual for each bag leak detection system
include concepts from EPA's ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997).
(7) The baseline output of the system must be established as
follows:
(i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device; and
(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 operations and maintenance plan required by paragraph (a) of
this section. In no event may the range be increased by more than 100
percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 1 calendar year
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.
(9) The owner or operator must maintain and operate the fabric
filter such that the bag leak 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 block period. Each time the alarm activates, 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 demonstrates that no corrective actions are necessary, no alarm
time will be counted. The owner or operator must continuously record
the output from the BLDS during periods of normal operation. Normal
operation does not include periods when the BLDS is being maintained or
during startup, shutdown or malfunction.
* * * * *

Table 1 to Sec. 63.1350.--Monitoring Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitor type/operation/
Affected source/pollutant or opacity process Monitoring requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All affected sources..................... Operations and maintenance Prepare written plan for all affected
plan. sources and control devices.
All kilns and in-line kiln raw mills at Continuous opacity Install, calibrate, maintain and operate
major sources (including alkali bypass)/ monitor, if applicable. in accordance with general provisions
opacity. and with PS-1.
Method 9 opacity test, if Daily test of at least 30-minutes, while
applicable. kiln is at representative performance
conditions.
Kilns and in-line raw mills at major Particulate matter Deferred
sources (including alkali bypass)/ continuous monitoring
particulate matter. systems.
Kilns and in-line kiln raw mills at major Combustion system Conduct annual inspection of components
and area sources (including alkali inspection. of combustion system.
bypass)/D/F.
Continuous temperature Install, operate, calibrate and maintain
monitoring at PMCD inlet. continuous temperature monitoring and
recording system; calculate three-hour
rolling averages; verify temperature
sensor calibration at least quarterly.

[[Page 16622]]

Activated carbon injection Install, operate, calibrate and maintain
rate monitor, if continuous activated carbon injection
applicable. rate monitor; calculate three-hour
rolling averages; verify calibration at
least quarterly; install, operate,
calibrate and maintain carrier gas flow
rate monitor or carrier gas pressure
drop monitor; calculate three-hour
rolling averages; document carbon
specifications.
New greenfield kilns and inline kiln raw Total hydrocarbon Install, operate, and maintain THC CEM in
mills at major and area sources/THC. continuous emission accordance with PS-8A; calculate 30-day
monitor. block average THC concentration.
Clinker coolers at major sources/opacity. Continuous opacity Install, calibrate, maintain and operate
monitor, if applicable. in accordance with general provisions
and with PS-1.
Method 9 opacity test, if Daily test of at least applicable 30-
applicable. minutes, while kiln is at representative
performance conditions.
Raw mills and finish mills at major Method 22 visible Conduct daily 6-minute Method 22 visible
sources/opacity. emissions test. emissions test while mill is operating
at representative performance
conditions; if visible emissions are
observed, initiate corrective action
within one hour and conduct follow up
Method 22 test. If visible emissions are
observed, conduct 30-minute Method 9
test.
New greenfield raw material dryers at Total hydrocarbon Install, operate, and maintain THC CEM in
major and area sources/THC. continuous emission accordance with PS-8A; calculate 30-day
monitor. block average THC concentration.
Raw material dryers; raw material, Method 22 visible As specified in operation and maintenance
clinker, finished product storage bins; emissions test. plan.
conveying system transfer points,
excluding totally enclosed conveying
system transfer points; bagging systems;
and bulk loading and unloading systems
at major sources/opacity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:

Sec. 63.1351 Compliance dates.

(a) The compliance date for an owner or operator of an existing
affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart is June 14,
2002.
(b) The compliance date for an owner or operator of an affected
source subject to the provisions of this subpart that commences new
construction or reconstruction after March 24, 1998 is June 14, 1999 or
upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
* * * * *

8. Section 63.1356 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 63.1356 Exemption from new source performance standards.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section, any affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart
is exempt from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard
contained in subpart F or subpart OOO of part 60 of this chapter.
* * * * *
(b) The requirements of subpart Y of part 60 of this chapter,
``Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants,'' do not apply
to conveying system transfer points used to convey coal from the mill
to the kiln that are associated with coal preparation at a portland
cement plant that is a major source under this subpart.

9. Section 63.1357 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate matter
and opacity standards.

* * * * *
(e) The PM and opacity standards and associated operating limits
and conditions will not be waived for more than 96 hours, in the
aggregate, for the purposes of conducting tests to correlate PM CEMS
with manual method test results, including all runs and conditions,
except as described in this paragraph. Where additional time is
required to correlate a PM CEMS device, a source may petition the
Administrator for an extension of the 96-hour aggregate waiver of
compliance with the PM and opacity standards. An extension of the 96-
hour aggregate waiver is renewable at the discretion of the
Administrator.
* * * * *

10. Table 1 to subpart LLL of part 63 is revised to read as
follows:

Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Citation Requirement LLL Explaination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(4).................... Applicability............. Yes..................
63.1(a)(5)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.1(a)(6)-(8).................... Applicability............. Yes..................
63.1(a)(9)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.1(a)(10)-(14).................. Applicability............. Yes..................
63.1(b)(1)........................ Initial Applicability No................... Sec. 63.1340 specifies
Determination. applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3).................... Initial Applicability Yes..................
Determination.

[[Page 16623]]

63.1(c)(1)........................ Applicability After Yes..................
Standard Established.
63.1(c)(2)........................ Permit Requirements....... Yes.................. Area sources must obtain
Title V permits.
63.1(c)(3)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.1(c)(4)-(5).................... Extensions, Notifications. Yes..................
63.1(d)........................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.1(e)........................... Applicability of Permit Yes..................
Program.
63.2.............................. Definitions............... Yes.................. Additional definitions in
Sec. 63.1341.
63.3(a)-(c)....................... Units and Abbreviations... Yes..................
63.4(a)(1)-(3).................... Prohibited Activities..... Yes..................
63.4(a)(4)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.4(a)(5)........................ Compliance date........... Yes..................
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................... [Reserved]
63.5(b)(3)-(6).................... Construction Approval, Yes..................
Applicability.
63.5(c)........................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.5(d)(1)-(4).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction.
63.5(e)........................... Approval of Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction.
63.5(f)(1)-(2).................... Approval of Construction/ Yes..................
Reconstruction.
63.6(a)........................... Compliance for Standards Yes..................
and Maintenance.
63.6(b)(1)-(5).................... Compliance Dates.......... Yes..................
63.6(b)(6)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.6(b)(7)........................ Compliance Dates.......... Yes..................
63.6(c)(1)-(2).................... Compliance Dates.......... Yes..................
63.6(c)(3)-(4).................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.6(c)(5)........................ Compliance Dates.......... Yes..................
63.6(d)........................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.6(e)(1)-(2).................... Operation & Maintenance... Yes..................
63.6(e)(3)........................ Startup, Shutdown Yes..................
Malfunction Plan.
63.6(f)(1)-(3).................... Compliance with Emission Yes..................
Standards.
63.6(g)(1)-(3).................... Alternative Standard...... Yes..................
63.6(h)(1)-(2).................... Opacity/VE Standards...... Yes..................
63.6(h)(3)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i).............. Opacity/VE Standards...... Yes..................
63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iv)............... Opacity/VE Standards...... No................... Test duration specified
in subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(6)........................ Opacity/VE Standards...... Yes..................
63.6(h)(7)........................ Opacity/VE Standards...... Yes..................
63.6(i)(1)-(14)................... Extension of Compliance... Yes..................
63.6(i)(15)....................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.6(i)(16)....................... Extension of Compliance... Yes..................
63.6(j)........................... Exemption from Compliance. Yes..................
63.7(a)(1)-(3).................... Performance Testing Yes.................. Sec. 63.1349 has
Requirements. 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..................
63.8(a)(2)........................ Monitoring................ No................... Sec. 63.1350 includes
CEMS requirements.
63.8(a)(3)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.8(a)(4)........................ Monitoring................ No................... Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3).................... Conduct of Monitoring..... Yes..................
63.8(c)(1)-(8).................... CMS Operation/Maintenance. Yes.................. Performance specification
supersedes requirements
for THC CEMS Temperature
and activated carbon
injection monitoring
data reduction
requirements given in
subpart LLL.
63.8(d)........................... Quality Control........... Yes..................
63.8(e)........................... Performance Evaluation for Yes.................. Performance specification
CMS. supersedes requirements
for THC CEMS.
63.8(f)(1)-(5).................... Alternative Monitoring Yes.................. Additional requirements
Method. in Sec. 63.1350(l).

[[Page 16624]]

63.8(f)(6)........................ Alternative to RATA Test.. Yes..................
63.8(g)........................... Data Reduction............ Yes..................
63.9(a)........................... Notification Requirements. Yes..................
63.9(b)(1)-(5).................... 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/Opacity Yes.................. Notification not required
Test. for VE/opacity test
under Sec. 63.1350(e)
and (j).
63.9(g)........................... Additional CMS Yes..................
Notifications.
63.9(h)(1)-(3).................... Notification of Compliance Yes..................
Status.
63.9(h)(4)........................ .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.9(h)(5)-(6).................... Notification of Compliance Yes..................
Status.
63.9(i)........................... Adjustment of Deadlines... Yes..................
63.9(j)........................... Change in Previous Yes..................
Information.
63.10(a).......................... Recordkeeping/Reporting... Yes..................
63.10(b).......................... General Requirements...... Yes..................
63.10(c)(1)....................... Additional CMS Yes.................. PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(c)(2)-(4)................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.10(c)(5)-(8)................... Additional CMS Yes.................. PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(c)(9)....................... .......................... No................... [Reserved]
63.10(c)(10)-(15)................. Additional CMS Yes.................. PS-8A supersedes
Recordkeeping. requirements for THC
CEMS.
63.10(d)(1)....................... General Reporting Yes..................
Requirements.
63.10(d)(2)....................... Performance Test Results.. Yes..................
63.10(d)(3)....................... Opacity or VE Observations Yes..................
63.10(d)(4)....................... Progress Reports.......... Yes..................
63.10(d)(5)....................... Startup, Shutdown, Yes..................
Malfunction Reports.
63.10(e)(1)-(2)................... Additional CMS Reports.... Yes..................
63.10(e)(3)....................... Excess Emissions and CMS Yes.................. Exceedances are defined
Performance Reports. in subpart LLL.
63.10(f).......................... Waiver for Recordkeeping/ Yes..................
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 Addresses.. Yes..................
63.14(a)-(b)...................... Incorporation by Reference Yes..................
63.15(a)-(b)...................... Availability of Yes..................
Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 02-8161 Filed 4-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

Related Material

Local Navigation