# FEDERAL REGISTER

Vol. 78 Tuesday,

No. 29 February 12, 2013

Part II



# Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants; Final Rule

### 10006 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9758-6]
RIN2060-AQ93

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutantsforthe Portland Cement Manufacturing Industryand Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On July18, 2012, the EPA proposed amendments tothe National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and the Standards ofPerformance for Portland Cement Plants. This final action amends the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the Portland
cement industry. The EPA is also promulgating amendments with respect to issues on which itgranted reconsideration on May 17, 2011. In addition, the EPA is amending the new

source performance standard for particulate matter. These amendments promote flexibility, reduce costs, ease compliance and preserve health benefits. The amendments also address the remand ofthe national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for the Portland cement industry by the United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit on December 9, 2011. Finally, the EPA is setting the date for compliance with the existing source national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to be September 9, 2015. DATES: This final rule is effective on February 12, 2013. The EPA is setting the compliance date for existing open clinker storage piles tobe February 12, 2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docketfor this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, for example, confidential business information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.govorin hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The 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 Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, contact Ms. Sharon Nizich, Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards; Sector Policies and Programs Division, Minerals and Manufacturing Group (D243-04); Environmental Protection Agency; Research Triangle Park,NC 27111; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919) 541-5450; email address: nizich.sharon@epa.gov. For information about the applicability ofthe NESHAP

or NSPS contact Mr. PatrickYellin, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division (2227A), Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number (202) 654-2970; email addressyellin.patrick@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Acronyms andAbbreviations.The following acronyms and abbreviations

are used in this document.
APCD airpollution control devices CAA CleanAirAct CBI confidential business information CDX Central DataExchange CEMS continuous emissionmonitoring

systems CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data

Reporting Interface CFR Code ofFederal Regulations CISWI commercial and industrial solid

waste incinerators CMS continuous monitoring system COMS continuous opacity monitoring

system CO 2 carbon dioxide CPMS continuous parametric monitoring

system D/F dioxins and furans EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESP Electrostatic Precipitators ERT Electronic Reporting Tool FR Federal Register gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot HAP hazardous airpollutants Hg mercury HCl hydrogen chloride ICR information collection request Lb/ton pound per ton MACT maximum achievable control

technology meHg methylmercury NAICS North American Industry

Classification System NAS National Academy of Science NESHAP NationalEmissions Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants NHSM Nonhazardous Secondary Materials NOx Nitrogen Oxides NRC National Research Council NSPS new source performance standards NTTAA National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act oHAP Non-dioxin organic hazardous air

pollutants OMB Office ofManagement and Budget PCA Portland Cement Association PM particulate matter ppm(v) (d,w) parts per million (by volume)

(dry,wet) RATA Relative Accuracy Test Audit RfD reference dose RIA regulatory impact analysis RTC Response to Comment RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers SIP state implementation plan SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide THC total hydrocarbons tpy tons per year TTN Technology Transfer Network gg/m 3 micrograms per cubic meter UPL Upper Prediction Limit UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating

Microbalance VCS voluntary consensus standards WWW worldwide web

BackgroundInformationDocument. On July 18, 2012 (77 FR 42368), the EPA proposed to amend the Portland cement manufacturing industry NESHAP and the Portland cement plant new source performance standards (NSPS). Inthis action, we are taking final action onthis proposal. A summary ofthe public
comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in Docket IDNumber EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817. Organization ofthisDocument.The information presented inthis preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information

A. Executive Summary B. Does this action apply to me? C. Where canI get a copy ofthis

document? D. Judicial Review II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authorityfor these

amendments? B. What actions preceded this final rule? 11. Summary ofFinal Amendments to Subpart LLL and SubpartF A. Reconsideration ofStandards B. Continuously Monitored Parameters for

Alternative Organic HAP Standard (With THC Monitoring Parameter) C. Allowing Sources With Dry Caustic

Scrubbers To Comply With HCl Standard Using Performance Tests D. Alternative PM Limit E. Coal Mills F. NESHAP Compliance Date Extension for

Existing Sources G. Section 112Eligibility To Be a New

Source H. Other Testing and Monitoring Revisions I.Miscellaneous Amendments J.Standards During Periods ofStartup and

Shutdown

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

K. Reporting forMalfunctions and

Affirmative Defense for Violation of Emission Standards During Malfunctions L. What are the compliance dates ofthe

standards? M. OpenClinker Storage Piles IV. Summary ofMajor Changes Since Proposal A. PMParametric Monitoring B. Scaling for Continuous Parametric

Monitoring ofTHC for Alternative OHAP Standard C. Work Practice Standard in Lieu of

Numerical Emissions Limits for Periods of Startup and Shutdown V. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses A. Amendments to Existing Source and

New Source Standards forPM Under CAA Sections 112(d) and 111(b) B. Mercury Standard C. Standards forFugitive EmissionsFrom

Open Clinker Storage Piles D. September 9, 2015, Compliance Date for

the Amended Existing Source Standards E. Eligibility to be a New Source Under

NESHAP VI. Summary ofCost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. What are the affected sources? B. How did EPA evaluate the impacts of

these amendments? C. What are the air quality impacts? D. What are the water quality impacts? E. What are the solid waste impacts? F. What are the secondary impacts? G. What are the energy impacts? H. What are the cost impacts? I.What are the health effects ofthese

pollutants? VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review andExecutive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children FromEnvironmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I.National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act J.Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. ExecutiveSummary

In this action the EPA is finalizing amendments to the NESHAP for Portland cement plants and tothe NSPS for Portland cement plants. These amendments respond topetitions for reconsideration filedby the Portland cement industry and to a decision by the United States Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). The EPA isretaining the stack emission standards for mercury, hydrogen chloride (HCI), and total hydrocarbons (THC) under the NESHAP, amending the stack emission standard for particulate matter (PM) under the NESHAP, and making a conforming amendment to the NSPS for PM. The amendments also include provisions which account for commingled HAP emissions from coal mills that are an integralpart ofthe kiln, establish a continuous monitoring regime for parametric monitoring ofPM,
set work practice standards for startup and shutdown, and revise the compliance date for the PM, mercury, HCI, THC and clinker storage pile existing source standards under the NESHAP. The EPA is also retaining the affirmative defense for civil penalties for violations ofemission limits occurring

as aresult ofamalfunction.

These amendments are based on sound technical and legaljustifications, and result in cost savings and compliance flexibility for the Portland
cement industry. This result is consistent with Executive Order 13563.

1.Purpose ofthe Regulatory Action

a. Need for the Regulatory Action

The EPA is amending the NESHAP for the Portland cement source category and the NSPS for Portland cement plants issued under sections 112(d) and 111(b) ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA). The most significant amendment is to the NESHAP andNSPS for PM, to correct monitoring issues with the PM compliance regime as promulgated in the 2010 final rule. As a result ofthis amendment, the EPA is also setting a compliance date ofSeptember 9, 2015, for meeting the PM, mercury, HCIand THC existing source NESHAP.

This final action also addresses the remand by the DC Circuit in Portland CementAss'n v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177 (DC Cir. 2011). In that case, the court upheld all ofthe EPA's methodology for establishing the Portland cement NESHAP, denied all petitions forreview challenging the NSPS, but also heldthat the EPA had arbitrarily denied reconsideration ofthe NESHAP to take into account the effect ofthe EPA's Nonhazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM) rule on the standards. The NHSM rule, issued after the NESHAP

was promulgated, had the effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI)and thus could have an effect onthe standards. The court also stayed the open storage clinker pile standards.

We are also amending various implementation requirements toprovide

more compliance flexibility for affected

sources. In addition, the amendments address the issues on which the EPA previously granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011).

b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

These amendments implement sections 112(d) and 111(b) ofthe CAA. Section 112 ofthe CAA establishes a regulatory process to address emissions ofhazardous airpollutants (HAP)from stationary sources. After the EPA identifies categories of sources emitting

one or more ofthe HAP listed in section 112(b) ofthe CAA, section 112(d) requires the EPA to promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those

sources. Section 112(i)(3)(A) requires that the compliance date for existing

sources shall be "as expeditiou[s] as practicable," but not more than 3years after a standard's effective date. Section 111 ofthe CAArequires that NSPS reflect the application ofthebest system ofemission reductions achievable which, taking into consideration the
cost ofachieving such emission reductions, and any non-air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements, the Administrator determines hasbeen adequately demonstrated.

2.Summary ofMajor Provisions

a. PM Emission Standards

As proposed, the EPA is amending the existing and new source PM standards in the NESHAP torequire manual stack testing in lieu ofPM continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for compliance determinations and requiring that a site-specific parametric operating level be established using a PM continuous parametric monitoring system (CPMS). We are changing the numeric emissions value ofthose standards for existing sources to 0.07 pounds per ton (lb/ton)clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new and reconstructed

sourcesbased on manual stack testing. The PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources are likewise amended
to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for

new andreconstructed sources based on manual stack testing.

b. Response to Remand

Consistent with the court's remand, the EPA has removed all ofthe CISWI kilns from the database used to set the 2010 existing source standards for PM, 

### 10007

### 10008 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

mercury, HCIand THC. This analysis informed the level ofthe final standards discussed immediately below.

c. Other Emissions Standards

As proposed, the EPA is changing the alternative organic HAP (oHAP) standard from 9 parts per million (ppm)
to 12 ppm. The EPA isnot changing the existing or new source standards for mercury, THC or HCl.

d. Standards During Startup and Shutdown

The EPA is amending the emission standards applicable during periods of startup and shutdown from numerical standards to work practice standards. e. Compliance Dates for NESHAP

As proposed, the EPA is establishing

a compliance date ofSeptember 9, 2015, for existing source standards for PM,
mercury, HCl and THC. The EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker storage piles. New

source standards continue to apply to all sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009.

f.Final Action on Reconsideration

The EPA is also taking final action on the remaining issues on which it granted reconsideration on May 17, 2011.

3.Cost Impacts ofThese Amendments

We estimate that revising the means ofdemonstrating compliance for the PM, alternative organic HAP standards andrequiring workpractices for open clinker storage piles will save industry $52 million annually.

4. Summary ofFinal Standards

Table 1 shows the final standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP and the Portland Cement Plants NSPS.

TABLE 1-EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard

M

ercury

.............................................................. 55 Ib/MMtons clinker

....................................... 21 Ib/MMtons clinker. TH C

.................................................................... 24 ppmvd

..................................... ......... 24 ppmvd

. PM

...................................................................... 0.07 lb/ton a clinker (3-run test average)

......... 0.02 lb/ton bclinker (3-run test average). HCI

..................................................................... 3 ppmvd

................................. .......... 3 ppmvd

. Organic HAP (alternative to Total Hydro- 12 ppmvd

......................................................... 12 ppmvd.

carbons).

aAlso applies to NSPS modified sources. bAlso applies to NSPS new and reconstructed sources.

B. Does thisaction applyto me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this final rule include:

TABLE 2-INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS 

### NESHAP AND 

### NSPS FINAL ACTION

Category NAICS code a Examples of regulated entities

Industry

..................................................... 327310 Portland cement manufacturing plants. Federal government

.................................. ........................ Not affected. State/local/tribal government

............... ......................... Portland cement manufacturing plants.

aNorth American Industry Classification System.

Table 2ofthis preamble 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 willbe regulatedby this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 60.60 (subpart F) or in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). Ifyou have any questions regarding the applicability ofthis final action to a particular entity, contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Wherecan Igetacopy ofthis document?

In addition to being available inthe docket, an electronic copy ofthis final action will also be available onthe World Wide Web (WWW) through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy ofthisfinal action will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed orpromulgated rules at the following address: http://www.epa.govl ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas ofair pollution control. In addition, more information can be obtained at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cement.

D.Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe CAA, judicial review ofthis final action is available onlyby filing a petitionfor review in the court by April 13, 2013. Under section 307(b)(2) ofthe CAA, the requirements established by the final rule may not be challenged separately in
any civil or criminal proceedings brought bythe EPA to enforce the requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) ofthe CAA further provides that "[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which

was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) maybe raised during judicial review." This section alsoprovides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, "[i]f the person raising

an objection can demonstrate to EPA that itwas impracticable toraise such objection within [the period for public comment] orifthe grounds for such objection arose after theperiod for public comment (butwithin the time specified forjudicial review) and ifsuch objection is ofcentral relevance to the
outcome oftherule." Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to

us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office ofthe Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with

a copy toboth the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office ofGeneral Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II.Background Information

A. What isthe statutoryauthority for theseamendments?

Section 112 ofthe CAA establishes a regulatory process to address emissions ofHAP from stationary sources. After the EPA has identified categories of

sources emitting one or more ofthe HAP listed in section 112(b) ofthe CAA, section 112(d)requires us to promulgate NESHAP for those sources. For "major sources" that emit or have the potential
to emit 10 tons per year (tpy)or more ofa single HAP or 25 tpy or more ofa combination ofHAP, these technologybased standards must reflect the maximum reductions ofHAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements and non-air quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.

The statute specifies certain minimum stringency requirements for MACT standards, which are referred to as "floor" requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(3). Specifically, for new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by thebest 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 bestperforming 12 percent ofexisting

sources (for which the Administrator has emissions information) in the category or subcategory (or the bestperforming five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).

In developing MACT, we must also consider control options that are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent than the floorbased on the consideration of the cost ofachieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements. See CAA section 112(d)(2).

Under section 112(i)(3)(A), compliance dates for existing sources shall "be as expeditiou[s] as practicable", but in no eventlater than 3years after the date ofpublication of the final rule in the FederalRegister. The EPA may set a revised compliance date ofa MACT standard when amending that standard, see NRDCv. EPA,489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007), but any such amended compliance date must still establish "compliance as expeditiously as practicable." Section 111(b) requires the EPA to set standards for emissions that "reflect the degree ofemission limitation achievable through the application ofthe best system ofemission reduction." See CAA section 111(a)(1). In contrast to the NESHAP floor setting process, NSPS requires the EPA to take into account the "cost ofachieving" emissions reductions, as well ashealth, environmental, and energy considerations. Id.

B. Whatactions precededthis final rule?
The history ofthis final rule, commencing with the 1999 standards and proceeding through the amendments issued in September 2009, is set out in detail in 75 FR 54970 (Sept 9, 2010). The Portland Cement Association (PCA)and several cement companies filed petitions for reconsideration of aspects ofthose amendments (copies ofthe petitions are in the Portland Cement Reconsideration docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817). On May 17, 2011, the EPA granted reconsideration ofvarious issues, and denied the petitions to reconsider as to the remaining issues. See 76 FR 28318 (May 17, 2011). On December 9, 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion upholding the NESHAP itself (aswell as the section 111 NSPS), but finding that the EPA had arbitrarily failed to grant reconsideration to consider the effect of the EPA's NHSM rule on the standards (76 FR 15456 (March 21, 2011)), The NHSM rule had the effect of reclassifying some cement kilns as commercial and solid waste incinerators. See Portland CementAss'n

v. EPA, 665 F. 3d 177, 186-189 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The court did not stay any ofthe numerical emission standards, but did stay the workpractice standards for open clinker storage piles pending the conclusion ofthe reconsideration process. See 665 F. 3d at 194.

In this action, the EPA isresponding
to the court's remand. For existing
sources, the EPA had done so by removing all kilns classified as CISWI units from the data used to establish the 2010 NESHAP standards. The EPA then recalculated each ofthe floorsbased on this dataset (the 2010 dataset minus CISWI units) and madebeyond-the-floor determinations based on the recalculated floors. The EPAbelieves that this approach isproperly responsive to the court's remand. See 665 F. 3d at 188 where the court referred favorably to this type of recalculation. For new sources, EPA used the same data as used to establish the 2010 floors-namely the performance ofthe best controlled similar sources as required by section 112(d)(3).

III. Summary of FinalAmendments to SubpartLLL and SubpartF

As discussed in the preamble ofthe proposed rule, 77 FR 42368, in this final action the EPA is finalizing several amendments to Subpart LLL and Subpart F. These amendments are summarized below.

A. ReconsiderationofStandards

As noted above, EPA has responded
to the action ofthe DC Circuit by removing all CISWI cement kilns from the database used to establish the existing source standards, and recalculating existing source floors and standards from thatrevised database. As described in the preamble ofthe proposal, the EPA had determined based onthe final NHSM rule that there

are 24 cement kilns which combust solidwaste. 77 FR 42372. During the
comment period, one company provided reliable information in its
comments regarding the materials it
processes indicating that one ofthese kilns is, in fact, a cement kiln (meaning that the EPA had properly classified it

as a cement kilnin the 2010 rulemaking).' After reviewing the information provided, the EPA agrees that this source should not be classified

as a CISWI kiln and, therefore, should
not be removed from the Portland
cement kiln database. We received no other comments concerning the identification ofcement kilns and CISWI units. There are thus now 23 kilns identified as combusting solid
waste andtherefore classified as CISWI units. As directed by the Court's decision, we removed these 23 kilns from the database andrecalculated the floors. This calculation resulted in the

same floors as proposed inthe July 2012 proposal.

Consistent with this analysis, the EPA is finalizing amendments to the emission standards as follows:

1 The company burns driedbiosolids as a fuel which are not classified as solid wastes. Refer to the Docket, No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0482. 

### 10009

### 10010 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

1.PM Emission Standards

The EPA is revising several provisions ofthe emission standards for PM as follows:

0 Changing the compliance basis for the PM standards from continuous monitoring with a PM CEMS to a manual three run stack test, amending the level and averaging time ofthe standard, and requiring a continuous parametric monitoring system using a CPMS. As a consequence, the EPA is also:

* Amending PM standards under the NESHAP for existing sources to 0.07 lb/
ton clinker based on manual stack testing, and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new andreconstructed sources based on manual stack testing;

* Amending PM standards under the NSPS for modified sources to 0.07 lb/
ton clinker based on manual stack testing and 0.02 lb/ton clinker for new andreconstructed sources likewise based onmanual stack testing; * Requiring that sources establish a site-specific parametric operating limit for PM, and requiring thatthe parametric limitbe continuously monitored using a PM CPMS; * Requiring that sources retest once a year to reset the PM CPMS operating limit; * Adding a provision that, ifa source exceeds that site-specific parametric operating limit, itmust conduct corrective action including performing a Method 5or 5I performance test within 45 days; in addition, ifthe source exceeds that parametric limitfour times in acalendar year,the source is presumed tobe in violation ofthe PM emissions standard itself, subject to rebuttal bythe source.
2.Mercury Standard

As proposed, the EPA is establishing

a standard for mercury of55 pounds per million (lb/MM)tons clinker for existing

sources and isnot changing the emission standard (21 lb/MM tons clinker) for new sources. The emission standard for existing sources is the same

as the 2010 standard but is a beyond the floor standard.

3.Other Emissions Standards

As the Court requested, the EPA removed the CISWI units from the database andre-calculated the standards for THC and HCl. The standards remain the same as they were in the final 2010 rule. See also 76 FR 21149, 21152, and 21154 explaining whybeyond the floor standards for THC and HCl are not justified. The 2010 rules provide an alternative tothe THC standard whereby

sources can meet a limit for non-dioxin organic HAP by measuring those HAP directly rather than meeting the standard for THC (a surrogate for nondioxin organic HAP). As proposed, the EPA is changing the level ofthe alternative non-dioxin organic HAP standard from 9 ppm to 12 ppm. Table 3 summarizes the Final Existing and New Source Standards

TABLE 3-EXISTING AND NEW SOURCE STANDARDS a

Pollutant Existing source standard New source standard

M

ercury

.............................................................. 55 Ib/MMtons clinker

....................................... 21 Ib/MMtons clinker. TH C

.................................................................... 24 ppmvd

..................................... ......... 24 ppmvd

. PM

...................................................................... 0.07 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average)

............ 0.02 lb/ton clinker (3-run test average). HCI

..................................................................... 3 ppmvd

.......................... .... ........... 3 ppmvd. Organic H APb

.................................................... 12 ppmvd

......................................................... 12 ppmvd

. aStandards for mercury and THC are based on a 30-day rolling average. The standard for PM is based on a three-run test. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCI standard, the floor is also a 30-day rolling average.

bIf the source opts to comply with the THC emission limit, this standard does not apply.

B. ContinuouslyMonitored Parameters forAlternativeOrganicHAPStandard (With THCMonitoring Parameter)

In addition to amending the level of the alternative oHAP standard (i.e., the standard whereby sources meet a standard for oHAP rather than forTHC), the EPA is amending the provisions for the site-specific THC operating parameter for that alternative standard (whereTHC is a site-specific parameter monitored continuously to show compliance with the oHAP standard). The THC operating parameter is established based on THC levels measured during the successful stack
test where oHAP are measured directly
to demonstrate compliance. As amended, ifcompliance source testing ofoHAP averages a value thatis 75 percent or less ofthe emission limitfor oHAP, the facility is allowed to establish a THC parametric operating level corresponding to 75 percent ofthe oHAP emission limit. We are adopting this provision to avoid penalizing lower-emitting sources byburdening them with the most stringent parametric operating levels. The EPA is adopting a similar provision for continuous PM parametric monitoring, for the same

reason (see Section IV.A below). Sources which show oHAP emissions in compliance, but greater than 75 percent ofthe standard, must establish the average THC concentration measured during the 3-hour organic HAP test and

use that as the site-specific THC operating level. Thus, the parametric monitoring level for THC willbe the level corresponding to oHAP levels of 75 percent ofthe standard orthe THC level ofthe oHAP performance test, whichever is higher.2 Compliance with the oHAP standard will be shown as a ratio ofthree testruns during mill-on conditions and three test runs during mill-off conditions, withthe percentage ofoperating time spent in each condition determining the ratio. The parametric operating level will be set

2 Ifa sourcebelieves that monitoring nonmethane THCrather than total THC is a more reliable indicator of its oHAP emissions, itcan submit an alternative monitoring request pursuant
to the requirements of40 CFR63.8(f). according to average THC values measured during these same test runs,

orto the default value of75 percent of the standard, as justexplained. In addition, the EPA will allow facilities to extend the testing time ofthe oHAP performance test iftheybelieve extended testing isrequired to adequately capture THC variability over time. This final rule further requires that the stack test for oHAP be repeated every 30 months to establish a new sitespecific THC parameter.

C.Allowing Sources WithDryCaustic ScrubbersTo ComplyWith HCI StandardUsingPerformanceTests

The 2010 rule allows sources equipped with wet scrubbers to comply with the HCl standard bymeans of periodic performance tests rather than with continuous monitoring ofHCl with

aCEMS. Sources electing to comply by

means of stack tests must establish continuously monitored parameters including liquid flow rate, pressure, and pH. Under this final rule, kilns with dry scrubbers may also demonstrate

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

compliance with the HCl emissions limitby means of an initial andperiodic stack test rather than with continuous compliance monitoring with an HCl CEMS. Ifa kiln equipped with a dry scrubber chooses this alternative, this final rule requires thatthe sorbent injection rate used during a successful performance testbe recorded and then continuously monitored to show that the injection rate remains at or above the rate used during the performance
test.

Where either wet or dry scrubbers are used, owners and operators may also establish sulfur dioxide (SO 2) as an operating parameter, rather than, for example, sorbent injection rate, liquid injection rate or pressure drop. Ifthe

owner or operator ofa scrubberequipped kiln makes this choice, itmust establish the SO2 operating limitequal
to the average ofthe HCl levels recorded during the HCl performance test, and
meet that operating limit on a 30 day rolling average basis. Ifa source exceeds any established parameter level,it must retest for HCl in order to verify compliance with the HCl emissions standard and mustverify or re-establish the parametric monitoring levels as well.

At a minimum, arepeat performance
test to confirm compliance with the HCl emissions limitisrequired every 30 months.

D.AlternativePMLimit

The 2010 final rule established an alternative PM limit to accommodate situations where kilns combine exhaust gas fromvarious operations. 77 FR 42382. The equation establishing the alternative limitcontained certain technical errors which the EPA proposed to correct. As proposed, this final rule revises the alternative PM equation so that itincludes exhaust gas flows from all sources that would potentially be combined, including exhausts from the kiln, the alkali bypass, the coal mill, and the clinker cooler, for an existing kiln. The EPA is thus finalizing the following equation: 

### PMalt = 0.0060 ×1.65 X

### (Qk +Qc +Qab

+ Q_)/(7000)
Where:
PMalt = The alternative PM emission limit for commingled sources. 0.0060 = The PM exhaust concentration (grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/ dscf)) equivalent to 0.07 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined. 1.65 = The conversion factor of lb feed per lb clinker. Q, = The exhaust flow ofthe kiln (dscf/ton feed). Q =The exhaust flowofthe clinker cooler (dscf/ton feed). 

### Qab = The exhaust flow ofthe alkali bypass (dscf/tonfeed). Q m = The exhaust flow ofthe coal mill (dscf/
ton feed). 7000 = The conversion factor for grains (gr) per lb.

Ifexhaust gases for any ofthe sources contained in the equation are not commingled and are exhausted through

a separate stack, theirvalue inthe equation wouldbe zero. The alternative PM equation for new sources is identical to the existing source equation except the PM exhaust concentration used in the equation is 0.002 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the new source PM limit of0.02 lb/ton clinker.

E.CoalMills

The EPA discussed at length inthe preamble to theproposed rule a potential regulatory regime to cover situations where a portion ofthe kiln exhaust is ducted to the coal mill. See
77 FR 42383-85; see also the regulatory text at 77 FR42398, 42402-06, 42408- 09. To assure that cement kilns do not exhaust untreated HAP through coal mills, and to assure accurate accounting ofcommingled emissions so that cement kilns are not penalized for commingling emissions where itmakes sense to do
so, the EPA is finalizing rules applicable
to kiln/coal mill emissions for two configurations. In one, aportion ofthe kiln exhaust is ducted to a coal mill, and then the coal mill exhaust is commingled with remaining kiln exhaust and discharged through the main kiln stack. In the other, aportion ofthe kiln exhaust isrouted throughthe coal mill and discharged throughthe coal mill stack.

In the case ofa coal mill thatreceives and discharges a portion ofthe cement kiln exhaust, this final rulerequires that the sum ofthe mercury, THC andHCl in the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill, and the kiln exhaust exhausted from the main kiln stack, must not exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate. The facility must document the contribution ofthe emissions diverted to the coal mill. For mercury, the rule allows tests tobe performed downstream ofthe coal mill to take advantage of any mercury removal that

occurs in the coal mill air pollution control device, and to avoid double counting emissions from mercury that becomes re-entrained in the coal. For THC and HCl, the rule allows teststo be performed upstream ofthe coal mill to avoid any THC or HCl that might be emitted by the coal. For owners and operators who believe thatthe impact of the testing location (upstream or downstream ofthe coal mill)would not result in their exceeding the kiln mercury, THC or HCl emissions limits and wish to conduct all their THC, HCl and mercury testing at a single location, this final rule allows testing either upstream or downstream ofthe coal mill. For sources complying with the alternate organic HAP limit, the facility would not be required to test for THC emissions, but would test for the organic HAP and add that concentration to the remaining emission points to estimate their total emissions for organic HAP.

A cement kiln that commingles emissions from its coal mill with all otherkiln exhaust emissions and discharges through a single stack could simply meet the kiln emission limits.In the case ofPM, the additional flow from the coal mill wouldbe accounted forin the equation used to determine PM contributions from commingled flows. See section D above. In this configuration, the source would also have the option ofmonitoring and/or testing kiln exhaust gases priorto the introduction ofthe coal mill exhaust gas, and testing the kiln gas diverted to the coal mill. In this case this final rule requires that the sum ofthe mercury, THC (or organic HAP ifthe source chooses the alternative organic HAP limit), and HCl inthe kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill plus the kiln exhaust measured in the main kiln exhaust must not exceed the subpart LLL emission limits for each respective HAP or HAP surrogate.

The same provisions for coal mills also apply to kilns equipped with an alkali bypass. The one minor exception is that for PM, the summed PM emissions from the kiln and alkali bypass mustbe equal to or less than the PM limitin subpart LLL. Tests for PM from the alkali bypass must be conducted downstream ofthe alkali bypass airpollution control devices (APCD) to account for those emission reductions.

With regard toPM, the EPA stated at proposal that where a coal mill receives and discharges a portion ofthe cement kiln exhaust, the kiln owner operator would have to demonstrate compliance with the 40 CFR 60 subpart Y standard for PM. Although the subpart Y standard is numerically higherthan the subpart LLL PM standard, EPA assumed that control wouldbe tothe same level because the subpart Y PM standard is predicated on use of fabric filer control technology. 77 FR 42383/2. However, a commenter pointed out accurately that this proposal contravened thebasic principle EPA indicated itwas adopting here ofnot allowing diverted kiln emissions to meet a more lenient standard than required by the NESHAP, 

### 10011

### 10012 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

and further indicated thatEPA had failed to show that these diverted PM emissions were controlled as required by section 112(d)(2) and (3)ofthe Act. EPA agrees with this comment, and accordingly is indicating in the final rule that commingled emissions in this situation would be required to meet the subpart LLL NESHAP for PM. Because coal mill stacks are controlled with fabric filters, we project thatthey can meet the subpart LLL numeric standard without further controls. See 77 FR 42383. Coal mill stacks will be required
to meet annual PM performance testing and combine the measured emissions with PM emissions from the separated alkali stack,bypass stack, and/or main kiln as required in sections 60.62(b)(3), 63.1349 and 63.1350 ofthis rule.

This final rule also states that sources equipped with an alkali bypass stack or

sources that exhaust kilngases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack are not required to install CEMS

onthese stacks. Instead ofinstalling a CEMS, such sources may use the results ofthe initial and subsequent performance test to demonstrate compliance with the PM, THC, HCl and
mercury emissions limits. Note that for the main kiln exhaust, the CEMS requirements remain.

We expand on these monitoring provisions below.

1.Mercury

Although mercury from the kiln stack is monitored using a CEMS, mercury emissions from the coal mill are based

on aperiodic performance test and use ofthe gas flow rate tothe coal mill. Performance tests for mercury mustbe conducted annually unless and until the tested mercury levels are below the method detection limits for two consecutive years, after which testsmay be conducted every 30 months. The performance test results mustbe summed with the emissions from the kiln stack to determine compliance. The coal mill exhaust mercury emissions are calculated on a mass basis using the measured mercury concentration and the coal mill exhaust gas flow. The coal mill exhaust flow is established using a continuous monitoring system (CMS), or the design maximum flow rate. Mass mercury emissions from the coal mill would be summed with the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln measured by the mercury CEMS. Hourly mercury emissions are then summed to calculate the rolling 30-day mass mercury emissions. This number is then dividedby the corresponding 30 days of clinker production to determine the 30- day rolling average. This final rule provides equations for summing emissions from the coal mill with the
mercury emissions from the kiln to determine continuous compliance. To

see an example calculation, see Section 4 ofthe Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for theproposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817- 0225.

2.THC and HCl

In this case, site specific kiln stack emission limits (tobe continuously monitored) are tobe calculated taking into consideration the volumetric exhaust gas flow rates and concentrations ofall applicable effluent
streams (kilnstack, coal mill and alkali bypass) for the kiln unit. In order to determine the flow rates and concentrations ofTHC and HCl in the coal mill and alkali bypass streams, the

source must test every 30 months using the appropriate test method. ForHCl, the performance test must be performed using Method 321 in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 63. For measurement ofTHC, Method 25A in Appendix A-7 to 40 CFR Part 60 isrequired. With these data, the concentration ofTHC and HCl that
must be monitored by the kiln CEMS in order to demonstrate compliance with the kiln MACT limitcan be calculated using the equations in this final rule. As with mercury, the coal mill flow rate used to calculate the allowable main kiln stack THC and HCI concentrations

can be based on a CMS, or on the maximum design flow rate. The sum of the kiln CEMS and the maximum emissions from the coal mill or alkali bypass must be at orbelow the subpart LLL limits for THC and HCl. See Section 4 ofPortland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document (developed for the proposal), docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225, for an example calculation.

Also, as a result ofthese revisions, the EPA isrevising the definition ofkiln to include inline coal mills and adding a definition ofinline coal mill.

F. NESHAPComplianceDateExtension forExistingSources

This final rule establishes that the compliance date for the amended PM standard, and for the THC, mercury and HCl standards, for existing sources for kilns, clinker coolers and raw material dryers is September 9, 2015. Thisfinal rule also establishes February 12, 2014,

as the compliance date for the existing open clinker storage pile work practice standards. A detailed discussion of these compliance dates canbe found in Section V.D. below. G. Section 112 EligibilityTo Be aNew Source

The EPA is not changing the date for

new source eligibility under the NESHAP. Thus, a source that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the section 112 new

source standards. Amore detailed discussion ofthis topic canbe found below in Section V.E.

H. OtherTestingandMonitoring Revisions

In this action we are finalizing the proposed corrections and clarifications
to the 2010 rule including changes to: Equations for calculating rolling operating day emissions rates; procedures thatinclude extraneous wording; and cross references and typographical errors in the rule.3

For sources that are required to monitor HCl emissions with a CEMS,

we are revising the requirements for using HCl CEMS to define the span value for this source category, to include quality assurance measures for data collected under "mill off" conditions, and to clarify use ofperformance specification (PS) 15. This final rule also

removes from the standard the oxygen correction factors for raw material dryers and makes minor, nonsubstantive changes to the sections and paragraphs below:

* Section 60.62(d). * Section 60.63(b)(1)(i) and (ii), (b)(2), (f)(1), (2), (4), (5), (h)(1) and (6)through (9) (i).

* Section 60.64(b)(2). * Section 60.66. * Section 63.1340(b)(1) and (6) through (8).

* Section 63.1346(a) and (c) through 

### (e).

* Section 63.1348(a)(2), (3)(i) through (iii), (a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(4)(ii) and (iv).

* Section 63.1348(b)(1)(i), (iii)and (iv).

* Section 63.1348(b)(3), (5), (6)(i), (8) and (c)(2)(iv).

* Section 63.1349(a), (b)(3), (d)(1) and (d)(2) and (e).

* Section 63.1350(d)(1)(i) and (ii), (f), (f)(2)(i) and (iii), (f)(3), (f)(4), (g)(1) and (2), (k), 1(2), (m)(3), (m)(10) and (11), (o) and (p).

* Section 63.1352(b). * Section 63.1356. * In addition, we are adding requirements in section 63.1348(a), that

3We note that these changes required the agency to reprint sections ofregulatory text. See e.g. 63.1348(a)(3)(i). Inreprinting these passages, EPA has notreopened, reconsidered, orotherwise reevaluated the substance ofthese provisions but rather is only making the needed technical alteration.

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

a cement kiln thatbecomes subject to the rule after having been subject to the CISWI regulations, must meet all the initial compliance testing requirements

even ifthey were previously subject to Subpart LLL.

L Miscellaneous Amendments
We are also finalizing amendments to clarify various requirements in this final rule including issues of applicability,
treatment ofmultiple sources thatvent to a single stack, thirdparty certification, definitions and use ofbag leak detection systems when PM CPMS

are in use.

For raw material, clinker or finished product storage bins, we have clarified that therequirements ofthisfinal rule apply only at facilities that are amajor

source (see section 63.1340(b)(6)) and that affected sources that are subject to subpart 000 (standards for nonmetallic mineral processing) are not subject to the requirements ofsubpart LLL (see section 63.1340(c)).

With regard tothe NSPS, to clarifythe recordkeeping and reporting requirement in section 60.65(a) to submitexcess emission reports, we have added to section 60.61 ofthe NSPS a definition of"excess emissions" to

mean "with respect to this subpart, results of any required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., emissions limitations, parametric operating limits)that ispermitted by this subpart. The values of
measurements will be in the same units and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the limitations." To clarify what data are used in the calculation ofemissions, or used in the calculation ofparametric levels that are used to demonstrate continuous compliance, we added to this section a definition of"operating day" tomean "a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. For calculating rolling 30-day average emissions, an operating day does not include the hours ofoperation during startup or shutdown." The definition for "operating day" in section 63.1341 of the NESHAP isrevised tobe consistent with the above definition. We also became aware that some raw material dryers maybe used to dry materials other than kiln feed and we have revised the definition of"raw material dryer" in recognition ofthat fact.

J. Standards DuringPeriodsofStartup andShutdown

In the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA established separate standards for periods ofstartup and shutdown which differ from the main standards that apply during steady state operations. In this action, based on comments received and the EPA's reconsideration ofseveral technical issues related to startup and shutdown, the EPA is adopting work practices in place ofthese numerical standards. The rationale andprovisions for the work practice standards are discussed in detail in section IV.C.

The EPA is also clarifying the operating conditions during which these standards apply, including a definition of "startup" and "shutdown". Under the amended definition, startup begins when the kiln's induced fan is turned

on and fuel combustion is occurring in the mainburner ofthe kiln. Startup ends when feed has been continuously fed tothe kilnfor at least 120 minutes

or when the kiln feed rate exceeds 60 percent ofthe kiln design limitation
rate. Shutdown begins when continuous feed to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases.

The startup and shutdown-related changes include:

e Adding a definition of startup and shutdown in section 63.1341, as described;

e Adding section 63.1346(f) describing workpractice standards to be
met during periods ofstartup and shutdown;

e Revising section 63.1347 to require that startup and shutdown procedures be included in the facility's operation and maintenance plan;

e Adding section 63.1355(f) requiring records ofeach startup and shutdown including the date, time and duration and the quantity offeed and fuel added
to the kiln during startup and shutdown;

e Adding section 63.1348(b)(9) requiring continuous compliance by operating all air pollution control devices during periods of startup and shutdown.

K.Reporting forMalfunctionsand AffirmativeDefense for Violationof EmissionStandards During Malfunctions

The EPA added to the September 9, 2010, final NESHAP rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties forviolations ofemissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. Various environmental advocacy groups, as well as the PCA, indicated thatthere hadbeen insufficient notice of this provision. The EPA agreed and granted reconsideration. See 76 FR 28325 (May 17, 2011). This action finalizes the EPA's decision toretain the affirmative defense on reconsideration.

The EPA is retaining in the final NESHAP rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations ofemission standards thatare caused by malfunctions. See 40 CFR 63.1341 (defining "affirmative defense" to mean, in the context ofan enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the defendant has theburden of proof, and the merits ofwhich are independently and objectively evaluated in ajudicial or administrative proceeding). We are also revising some oftheregulatory provisions that specify the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative defense as proposed with minor changes from proposal described later in this section. The source must prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence thatit has met all ofthe elements set forth in section 63.1344. (See 40 CFR 22.24). The criteria are designed in part to

ensure that the affirmative defense is available only where the event that

causes aviolation of the emission standard meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or careless operation). Forexample, to successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must proveby a preponderance ofthe evidence thatthe violation "[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal orusual manner * * *." The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with section 63.1344 and to prevent future malfunctions.

Similar to actions taken in several otherrecent NESHAP amendments (see National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From Secondary Lead Smelting, 77 FR 556, January 5, 2012, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair (Surface Coating), andNational Emission Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations, 76 FR 72050, November 21, 2011), the EPA included

an affirmative defense in the 2010 final rule and is retaining itin this rule (see section 63.1344). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility toboth ensure that its emission standards are "continuous" as required by42 U.S.C. §7602(k), and
account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness ofthe standard as a whole. In addition to the authority cited in support ofthe affirmative defense in thepreamble to the proposed rule, the EPA notes that a recent court decision further supports 

### 1001310014 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the EPA's authority to promulgate an affirmative defense. The United States Court ofAppeals for the Fifth Circuit recently upheld the EPA'sview that an affirmative defense provision is consistent with section 113(e) ofthe Clean Air Act.LuminantGenerationCo. LLCv. UnitedStatesEPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21223 (5thCir. Oct. 12, 2012) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). As discussed in the preamble tothe proposed rule (77 FR 42379), the EPA's view isthat an affirmative defense to civilpenalties for exceedances of applicable emission standards during periods ofmalfunction appropriately resolves an underlying tensioninherent in many types of air regulation, to

ensure continuous compliance while simultaneously recognizing thatdespite the mostdiligent ofefforts, emission limits maybe exceeded under circumstances beyond the control ofthe

source. See generally, Virginiav. Browner,80 F.3d 869, 878 (4th Cir. 1996) (theEPA's interpretation that resolved a tension within the CAA is reasonable). The EPA has usedits section 301(a)(1) authority to issue regulations necessary to carry out the Act in a manner that appropriately balances these competing concerns.

We are promulgating revisions to the affirmative defense provisions in section 40 CFR 63.1344 as described at proposal (77 FR 42380) and making some minor additional revisions. The phrase "emission limit" was changed to "emission standards" to reflect thatthe affirmative defense couldbe applicable
to certain workpractice standards. The phrase, "Off-shift and overtime labor

were used, to the extent practicable to make these repairs" was removed. The
term "notification" to "reporting" was changed to reflect that the root cause analysis required under affirmative defense would be submitted with other periodic reporting. The term "and monitoring" was deleted because monitoring malfunctions are defined differently than malfunctions ofprocess and control units and the affirmative defense is intended to apply to malfunctions to affected units that cause

afailure tomeet an emission standard. The word "however" was removed to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase "the respondent fails" was removed and replaced with "you fail" toincorporate

more plain language intothe regulation. The word "its" was replaced with "your" to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase "all ofthe" was replaced with "your" also to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. The phrase "air pollution control practice" was shortened to "good practices" to incorporate more plain language into the regulation. In addition, the written report required when asserting an affirmative defense was changed from a separate "semiannual" report to a report that is submitted with the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the event.

We are finalizing the reporting and recordkeeping associated with violations due to malfunctions as described at proposal (77 FR42388) and making some minor additional revisions

as described below.

e Revising section 63.1354(b)(vii) for reporting and recordkeeping violations due to malfunctions. The phrase "failure to meet a standard" was usedto replace "deviation" in the requirement
to report violations ofthe standard. This

was changed because the EPA is not finalizing a definition ofdeviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the general provisions.

e Revising section 63.1354(c) for reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction. In addition, the phrase "failure tomeet a standard" was used to replace "deviation" inthe requirement to report violations ofthe standard. This was changed because the EPA isnot finalizing a definition of deviation in this subpart and the term is not defined in the general provisions. * Revising section 63.1355(f) addressing recordkeeping during startup and shutdown. The proposed recordkeeping requirement applicable to startup and shutdown assumed that a numerical emission standard was applicable during startup and shutdown. In finalizing the work practice standards in 63.1346(f) there will no longer be anumerical emission standard applicable during startup and shutdown. As such the recordkeeping requirement must change toreflect the
content ofthe workpractice standard. Records mustbe kept of the date, time and duration ofthe periods when the work practice is applicable, as well as the fuel and feed data to demonstrate compliance with the workpractice standard.

L. Whatarethecompliancedatesofthe standards?

During the comment period,
comments were received that confirmed the need for additional compliance time, since the revised standards can result in different compliance strategies relative tothe 2010 final rule. Thus, as proposed, this final rule establishes the compliance date for the amended existing source standards including standards for PM, mercury, HCI and THC to be September 9, 2015. The existing source compliance date for the requirements for open clinker storage piles isFebruary 12, 2014. New sources which commenced construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, would remain subject to the new source standards and a compliance date of February 12, 2013, or startup, whichever is later.

M. Open ClinkerStoragePiles

The EPA has added workpractice requirements for open clinker storage piles that will reduce fugitive dust emissions from these sources. This final rule also contains a definition of open clinker storage piles and requires that a source's operation and maintenance plan include the steps the facility will take to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker storage piles. A detailed discussion ofthese requirements can be found in section V.C below.

IV. Summary ofMajor Changes Since Proposal

A. PMParametric Monitoring Changes to PM Parametric Monitoring. The EPA proposed the use ofPM CPMS for continuous monitoring ofPM emissions as a 30-day rolling average established by identifying the average PM CPMS response corresponding to the highest 1-hour PM compliance test.Failure to meet this 30- day rolling average would result in retesting, and more than four exceedances from the parametric limit in a year would be presumed (subjectto possibility ofrebuttal by the source) to be a violation ofthe emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377. Industry commented that this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities, especially for the loweremitting sources. The issue ofincreased compliance burden falling on the lower emitting sources is legitimate. Sources with especially low PM limits intheir performance test wouldbe most at risk ofexceeding a parametric limitdue to

afew emission spikes, even though they would still be operating well underthe actual PM compliance limit. We also received comment thatthe highest PM performance test run may represent, in

some circumstances, a number higher than the PM emissions standard. To avoid this eventuality we have changed the final rule to require setting the PM operating limitequivalent to the average ofthe three PM performance tests, which constitutes the demonstration of compliance with the standard. To avoid

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

penalizing lower emitting facilities, the EPA has modified the way PM CPMS operating limits are established. Sources whose compliance withthe PM emission standard are shown tobe 75 percent or belowthe emission limitin the PM method 5compliance test will
settheir PM parametric operating limit
to be a 30-day rolling average equivalent
to that 75 percent level. In a recent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA established 75 percent ofthe limit as a number that allows for compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective ofthe emission standard, and the same technical basis is applicable here as well. Sources whose compliance with the PM emission standard are above 75 percent ofthe emission limit will establish their operating limit as a 30-day rolling average equal to the average PM CPMS values recorded during the PM compliance test. It shouldbe noted thatthis provision affects the allowable level ofthe parametric limit, but does not change the PM emission limitthatmust be met.

B. Scaling forContinuousParametric MonitoringofTHC forAlternative OHAPStandard

As explained in section III.B above, the EPA is adopting a scaling approach for parametric monitoring ofTHC under the alternative organic HAP standard which isconceptually similar to the one just discussed for parametric monitoring ofPM. This provision affects the allowable level ofthe THC parametric limit, but does not change the oHAP emission limitthat mustbe met.

The EPA proposed the use ofTHC monitoring in conjunction with organic HAP compliance testing to determine a parametric operating limitoption for monitoring continuous compliance with the alternative organic HAP standard. In the proposed rule the organic HAP parametric operating limitwas established by correlating the highest of three organic HAP test resultswith the corresponding average THC concentration recorded by a parametric THC monitor. Industry commented that this requirement would trigger unnecessary retests for many facilities, especially for the best performing

sources. Not wishing to penalize those

sources showing good performance, and simultaneously wanting tobe protective ofthe emission standard, the EPA is changing the way parametric THC operating levels are established. Sources whose compliance withthe organic HAP emission standard are shown to be below 75 percent ofthe emission limit will set their operating limittobe a 30- day rolling average equivalent to that 75 percent level. Sources whose compliance with the organic HAP emission standard are at or above 75 percent ofthe emission limitwill establish their operating limit as a 30- day rolling average equal to the average parametric THC values recorded during the organic HAP compliance test. Sources with an in-line kiln/raw mill will use the fraction oftime theraw mill is on and the fraction oftime thatthe

raw mill is off,and calculate this limit

as aweighted average ofthe THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill offtesting.

C. WorkPractice Standard inLieu of NumericalEmissionsLimitsforPeriods ofStartupandShutdown

Under section 112(h) ofthe Act, the EPA may adopt a work practice standard in lieu ofanumerical emission standard only ifit is "not feasible in the judgment ofthe Administrator to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for control ofa hazardous air pollutant". This phrase is defined inthe Act to apply to any situation "in which the Administrator determines that * * * the application ofmeasurement methodology to a particular class of

sources isnot practicable due to technological and economic limitations." CAA section 112(h)(1) and (2). In adopting numerical limits for startup and shutdown in the 2010 final NESHAP, the EPA rejected comments that it should adopt work practices as a standard during startup and shutdown. This was largely because the
commenters had not addressed the issue ofwhether the requirements ofsection 112(h)had been met. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3464, pp. 183-84. The EPA later denied petitions
to reconsider this issue on the grounds that the agency had already provided ample opportunity for comment on the issue, which petitioners had used. See 76 FR at 28323. The DC Circuit dismissed all challenges to the startup and shutdown provisions in the NESHAP (665 F 3d at 189). The EPA granted reconsideration on several technical issues related to startup and shutdown-specifically, monitoring of mercury and PM during startup and shutdown and having an HCl limit of

zero for kilns not equipped with CEMS (see 76 FR at 28325), but these issues are

no longer relevantbased on the approach adopted in this final rule.

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain the numerical standards, but to use recordkeeping rather than
measurements to document compliance with the numerical standard. 77 FR 42382-83. EPA further solicited
comment "on whether the numeric standards during startup and shutdown shouldbe amended to provide work practices", and suggested whatpotential work practices might be. Id. at 42383. Some commenters supported retention ofnumerical standards, stating that nothing in the record supports a decision bythe EPA that numeric standards are not feasible to measure. However, these commenters provided

no supporting technical data. We also received comments opposing numeric limits and supporting work practices in their stead. Commenters stated that any numeric limit shouldbe based on actual data gathered during startup and shutdown, which the proposed limits

are not, and that measurement of emissions during startup and shutdown poses significant technical problems, mainly based on CEMS calibration issues, and the duration ofstartups and shutdowns.

Industry has presented information specific tothe cement industry to the EPA on technical issues associated with
cement kilns measuring PM, mercury, THC and HCl during periods ofstartup and shutdown. See docketitem EPAHQ-OAR-2011-0817-0237[1] and PCA Meeting 9-15-11 monitoring presentation in the docket forthis rulemaking, as well as their public
comments. EPA has continued to evaluate these data. In light of all of these public comments and further evaluation ofthe data, the EPA has decided to establish work practice standards in lieu ofnumeric standards during startup and shutdown periods. The EPA is doing so because the application ofmeasurement methodology is not practicable for technological and economic reasons. See CAA section 112(h)(2)(B).

The operation ofkilns at cement manufacturing plants is different from many other sources. Kiln startups can last days, during which time fuels are switched and temperatures and moisture conditions fluctuate substantially. Also, cement kilns have
two types ofinputs-raw feed thatis changed into clinker in the kiln, and kiln fuel. The cement kiln is sizedto accommodate notjustexhaust gas flow from combustion, but the gases evolved from the calcination oflimestone and moisture that evaporates from the kiln feed. As a result ofthese factors, the difference in gas flow characteristics of

a cement kiln during steady state operation and startup/shutdown is more pronounced than thatfor other combustion source categories. In addition, cement kilnsbegin introducing feed as part ofthe startup process which further exacerbates the transient and fluctuating nature ofthese 

### 10015

### 10016 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

operations not only because ofthe impact ofthis feed on the exhaust gases, but because raw materials and fuels are introduced at opposite ends ofthe kiln, which results in countercurrent flow of the solid material in the kiln andkiln exhaust gas, increasing the turbulence, transience and fluctuating conditions. The result is that conditions change constantly when cement kilns are in startup or shutdown mode. These conditions make stack measurements, both manual and continuous, for this

source category unreliable because the
constant shifting in conditions prevents any stack measurement from being representative of anything but conditions at thatprecise moment. For that reason manual stack tests, which take place over a period of afew hours, would not be presenting accurate information, since they would notbe reliably measuring conditions across the duration ofthe test.

There isno way to craft a testing regime to compensate for these testing issues at each kiln in a manner that can produce reliable and replicable results. Such modifications would be specific to that individual startup event-i.e. ad hoc and therefore not ofgeneral applicability or utility in showing compliance. Continuous measurements conducted during these periods for
cement kilns are also subject to inaccuracies resulting from these rapidly changing conditions. The temperature changes ofgreater than one thousand degrees Fahrenheit, flue gas moisture changes greater than 20 percent, and gas flow changes over several thousand cubic feetper minute,

as well as other factors such as flue gas molecular weight swings, combine to
create a complex matrix ofmeasurement variables not accounted for in a cement kiln CEMS installation. That is, CEMS for PM, HCl, Hg, and THC are not able
to reliably accommodate all ofthese transient shifting variables when measuring cement kiln startup and shutdown emissions. As noted above, these issues are further exacerbated by the fact that cement kilns have multiple inputs (fuel and feed), and the clinker production process generates higher gas flows than would be expected based on just the fuel inputs. This fact also means that flue gas flow rates cannot be accurately calculated from fuel inputs alone.

The EPA regards situations where a measurement may yield avalue which is analytically suspect, which is the case for cement kilns during startup and shutdown for the reasonsjust described,

asbeing a situation where measurement is not "technologically practicable" within the meaning ofsection 112(h)(2)(B) ofthe Act. Unreliable
measurements raise issues of practicability and offeasibility and enforceability (see section 112(h)(1)).4

The EPA is not finalizing its proposed approach ofsetting numerical emission limits for startup and shutdown and requiring that sources certify compliance with those limits by keeping certain records certifying that they used certain fuels and did not introduce feed into the kiln.Under the proposal,

sources would have hadto certify compliance with the standards for the various organics based on assumed combustion conditions. As pointed out persuasively in the public comments, combustion conditions during startup and shutdown are too widelyvarying to either reliably measure or calculate emissions because combustion conditions change widely during startup and shutdown, sources indicated that they could not certify compliance based

on an assumed combustion condition. See docketitem EPA-HQ-OAR-2011- 0817-0506, p. 11 ("Untilideal combustion conditions canbe met in the combustion chamber (adequate temperature and turbulence), the combustion process willbe incomplete. While this should not impact fuelderived hazardous air pollutants (chlorine and mercury), itwill impact the emissions oforganics and possibly PM"). In light ofthe measurement issues noted above and the fact that

sources could not certify compliance under the proposed approach, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed approach of setting numerical limits for startup and shutdown and allowing sources to certify compliance with the limits by maintaining certain records.

Instead, for the reasons explained above, the EPA is establishing work practice standards to demonstrate compliance with startup and shutdown. The workpractices that apply during startup and shutdown are as follows: * During startup the kiln must initially use any one or combination of the following clean fuels: Natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas, and ultra-low sulfur diesel until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. * Combustion ofthe primary kiln fuel
may commence once the kiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit.

4The application ofmeasurement methodology during cement kiln startup and shutdown would also notbe "practicable due to * * * economic limitation" within the meaning ofsection 112(h)(2)(B) sinceit wouldjust result in cost expended to produce analytically suspect
measurements. * All air pollution control devices
must be turned on and operating prior
to combusting any fuel.

* You must keep records as specified in §63.1355 during periods of startup and shutdown.

For the purpose ofidentifying when the kiln is in a startup/shutdown mode and subject to work practices and when the kiln is subject to numerical emission limits, we are defining the beginning and ending of startup and shutdown. At proposal we defined startup as when the kiln's induced fan is turned on and shutdown was defined asbeginning when feed to the kiln is halted. Commenters noted that a kiln may have the induced draft (ID) fan operating

even when the kiln is completely shutdown, no fuel isbeing burned, and there isno potential for emissions. Therefore, we changed the startup definition to be when a shutdown kiln
turns on the ID fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner, because this is the point where the potential for emissions
to occur begins. Startup ends when feed isbeing continuously introduced into the kiln for at least 120 minutes oruntil the feed rate exceeds 60 percent ofthe kiln design limitation rate. We added the duration/load element tothe definition ofstartup because during startup a kiln mustbegin adding feed material to achieve steady state operation. After feed is first introduced it requires up to two hours or sufficient feed to achieve 60 percent ofmaximum operation to achieve arepresentative steady-state condition. (See meeting notes, PCA November 28, 2012, in the docketfor this rulemaking). Shutdown begins when continuous feedto the kiln is halted and ends when the kiln rotation ceases.

We believe these work practices, which include the requirement that all air pollution control devices be operating, will ensure that emissions during startup and shutdown will be lower than the standards that apply during steady state operations, given use ofcleaner fuels, minimal raw material inputs, and operation ofall control devices during these periods. See 77 FR 42382 (noting that emissions during startup and shutdown wouldbe expected to be lower than during steady
state operations for these reasons).

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

V. Summary of Significant Comments andResponses

A. Amendments toExistingSourceand New SourceStandards forPMUnder CAA Sections112(d)and111(b)

1.Changes to Level and Averaging Time ofExisting Source NESHAP

The EPA proposed to amend the existing and new source standards for PM. The floor for the existing source standards increased from 0.04 lb/ton clinker to 0.05 lb/ton clinker as a result ofremoving CISWI kilns from the database. See Section 8.3, Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical SupportDocument, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011- 0817-0225; see also 77 FR 42372/3. Second, the EPA proposed to change the compliance regime for the standard from use ofPM CEMS to stack testing,

a consequence being thatthe standard would no longer be expressed as a 30- day average but rather as the average of three test runs. The EPA thus proposed
to express the recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average resulting from the reanalysis) as .07 lb/
ton ofclinker (average ofthree test runs). The 0.07 lb/ton clinker standard expresses the recalculated floor (i.e. 0.05 lb/ton clinker) as a not-to-exceed value based on stack testing, using the Upper Prediction Limit equation to do so. See Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0225. 5

The EPA further proposed to use CPMS for continuous parametric monitoring. This system responds to changes in PM concentration and generates a corresponding milliamp output signal. 77 FR 42376-77. The proposed PM parametric level was correlated to the highest recorded value during three test runs. A source would
meet this site-specific level on a 30-day rolling average. Failure to meet this 30- day rolling average would result in retesting, and more than four deviations from the parametric level in a year would be presumed (subject to possibility ofrebuttal by the source) to be a violation ofthe emission standard itself. See 77 FR 42377.

5One commenter inaccurately stated that the proposed rule would essentially double the PM standard. As justexplained, the existing source floor (andstandard) increased from 0.04 30-day
average to 0.05 lb/ton clinker 30-day average as a result ofremoving CISWI kilns. As a not-to-exceed standard, that same level is expressed as 0.07 lb/
ton clinker,the higher level reflecting the greater variability involved whenbasing the standard on the average ofthe three testruns rather than on 30 days ofmeasurements. Our proposal to change the compliance regime from use ofCEMS to stack tests reflected technical issues related to a PM CEMS' reliability with measuring the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, the EPA discussed the reliability of measurements, obtained using PM CEMS calibrated as required bythe mandated PS 11, below the level ofthe 2010 standard or the level ofthe recalculated PM floor. See 77 FR 42374- 76. The EPA'sjudgment at proposal was that as a result ofPM measurement uncertainties, "this correlation will not be technically or practically achievable for a significant number ofcement kiln sources." Id. at 42376.

One commenter challenged the necessity ofamending the standard to a stack test regime (apparently not realizing thatthe existing source standard also changed as a result of removing CISWI kilns from the database). First, the commenter maintained thatthe EPA has no authority to voluntarily change a promulgated MACT standard tomake the standard less stringent, based onthe language of section 112(d)(7). The
commenter further maintained thatthe EPA had not definitively shown thatPM CEMS calibrated pursuant to PS 11 could not be used to reliably measure the Portland cement PM standard. Specifically, the commenter stated that the various problems identified by the EPA at proposal are amenable to resolution by testing longer and more often, and argued thatthe EPA essentially admitted as much at proposal. The commenter noted that other technical problems, like the difficulty ofaccounting forvaried particle sizes, could be resolved by using a beta gauge CEMS. The
commenter dismissed the EPA's technical reservations on these issues as arbitrary speculation. The commenter also stated that PM CEMS are already in successful useby cement plantsboth in this country and overseas. The
commenter further believed thatthe EPA could resolve these technical issues by amending the PM CEMS Performance Specification rather than by amending the averaging time ofthe PM standard and changing its compliance basis.

In response, we note first that we do
not accept the commenter's legal argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) states that "[n]o other emission standard * * * underthis section shall be interpreted, construed

or applied to diminish or replace the requirements ofa more stringent emission limitation or other applicable requirement established pursuant to section 111 ofthis title, part C or D of this subchapter, or other authority of this chapter or a standard issued under State authority." Although the
commenter maintained thatthis provision unambiguously bars the EPA from amending thepromulgated NESHAP to make it less stringent, we disagree. Indeed, itis hard to read the statutory language in such a way. On its face, the provision indicates that a section 112(d) standard does not supplant more stringent standards issued under some authority other than section 112(d). Nor does the commenter's interpretation make sense. It wouldbar the EPA from amending a section 112(d) standard that was technically deficient or incorrect. This
cannot havebeen Congress' intent when adopting the technology-based section 112(d)MACT regime.6 Moreover, when Congress adopted anti-backsliding provisions in the CAA, itdid so explicitly. See CAA sections 172(e); 110(1); and 193. There is no such explicit language in section 112(d)(7). Thus, the EPA does notread section 112(d)(7) as precluding amendments to MACT standards which result in numerically less stringent standards, provided ofcourse, that such standards

are technically justified and otherwise consistent with the requirements ofthe Act.

The commenter is also mistaken in asserting that sources can simply utilize PM CEMS not correlated toPS 11. The PS 11 requirements apply to all PM CEMS used by a cement kiln. See sections 63.1349(b)(1)(A) and 1350 (b)(1) from the 2010 final rule (75 FR 55057,55059). 7
With regard tothe technical issues raised by this commenter, the EPA explained in detail at proposal the problems ofcorrelating PM CEMS under PS 11 atcement plants (see 77 FR 42374-42377). These obstacles are not resolvable simplyby measuring more often and longer, as the commenter maintains. Extending the duration ofthe Method 5test gives thisreference method additional opportunity to collectmore sample mass, but this is no guarantee thatthe time added to the test will collect enough particulate mass to resolve detection issues, especially when testing is conducted at the better performing (lower emitting) sources. Longer test runs inherently increase the variability ofthe PM CEMS data collected during the test,which may

cause further difficulties with the

6 The commenter cites no legislative history to support its reading, nor is EPA aware ofany.

7 It also makes no senseto usePM CEMS not subject to a uniform calibration protocol. The results obtained would notbe comparable. 

### 10017

### 10018 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

correlationbetween instrument and reference method. Nor does conducting

ahigher number ofreference method
tests resolve the difficulties with PS 11 correlation created by greater uncertainty in the reference method at low levels. Put another way, more tests with high uncertainty and poor correlation do not improve the likelihood ofpassingPS 11 as there is

no expectation ofimproving the mathematical relationship between the reference test and the instrument. Furthermore, PS 11 section 8.6 requires

aminimum number offifteentests to develop a correlation curve, with no limit tothe maximum number. Considering more than 15 testswhen developing the correlation creates much difficulty in developing a precise mathematical relationship. Sources are allowed to discard 5runs for any reason they wish,but must present at least 15
test runs for the correlation calculation. Id. As a source increases the number of
test runs beyond 20, any additional runs must be included in the correlation equation and at thatpoint the ability of

a source to satisfy PS 11 becomes more hampered with every test run.

The EPA noted that special problems

are posed by the size andvariability of
cement kiln-generated particulate. The EPA also noted thatthe standard lightscintillation type ofPM CEMS would likely encounter higher variability for the same PM concentration, andhave difficulty satisfying correlation protocols as a result. The EPA noted thatbeta gauge CEMS could potentially resolve atleast some issues related to cement particle variability but noted further that these devices were largely untested in the cement industry, and

none (so faras the EPA is aware)has successfully completed a PS 11 certification. See 77 FR 42375/3. The
commenter maintains thatthe existence ofbeta gauge CEMS resolves all questions as to their reliability in the
cement industry,but the EPA reiterates,

as it did at proposal, thatthere needs to be some assurance ofthe reliability of that methodology to certify with PS 11
atlow levels (as required bythis final rule). Thatinformation does not presently exist. The commenter states that the EPA isbeing speculative asto potential difficulties with a different CEMS technology, but relative to Portland cement sources, itwould be speculative to assume thatbeta gauge CEMS would successfully pass aPS 11 certification to reliably and quantifiably

measure compliance with the NESHAP, especially atthe very low PM levels at

some ofthe sources inthe cement

source category. The commenter also maintains that Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) devices couldbe used in place oflight scintillation PM CEMS. ATEOM is a device that uses a very thin, tapered, element vibrating at

a known frequency thathas a first principle relationship to the
measurement ofmass. Particles that impact the element also impact the harmonic vibration ofthe sensor which

can be translated to a measurement of the particle mass. This is a more direct approach to measuring the actual mass ofPM in stack gas, andhas shown promise to operate very consistently at low levels in laboratory conditions. Several TEOMs are currently used for monitoring ambient PM levels at several non-cement, non-domestic industry installations. TEOMs thatare capable of measuring stack gas are not currently available for sale in the U.S., though this may change in future years. Even so, with a monitor capable ofmore direct

mass measurement ofPM in stack gas, using PS 11 to certify one against Method 5may be problematic at low PM concentrations. The EPA currently has

no data to assess TEOM capabilities

versus Method 5at very low PM concentrations such as those presented by the better performing sources in this category. Were TEOM instrumentation commercially available, the EPA would need to conduct a re-evaluation ofPM CEMS technology that included TEOM data to determine ifthis instrument could overcome the challenges posed by calibration with Method 5atthe very low PM levels emitted by some ofthe

sources in the cement source category. As justexplained, it is not speculation, but rather legitimate engineering caution thatmakes it appropriate not to require compliance with a rule based on

an untested measurement methodology.

The commenter further maintains that rather than amend the standard to change the compliance test methodology and averaging time, the EPA should revise PS 11 instead, evidently assuming that arevision can be done rapidly. The commenter's assumption ismistaken. Performance specification development is a process that takes multiple years and involves data collection on types oftechnologies, field testing, comparison to reference
measurement methodology, workgroup and stakeholder meetings, peer review, rule proposal and public comment period, as well as commentresponse and final promulgation ofthe Performance Specification. With the development ofPA 12A forMercury CEMS, the EPA invested a budget in

excess ofone million dollars to conduct technology and field studies, as well as to refine the analytical techniques and work through stakeholder concerns prior to proposal ofthe Performance Specification. The process from inception to final promulgation took

over 5years to complete. PS 11, at issue here, was over 3years in development, from concept to final promulgation, and involved a budget of$250,000. Based on this past history, itislikely to result in

a delay of3years or more were the EPA
to delay promulgation ofthis final rule until we could undertake the process to research, propose and finalize solutions
to PS 11 thatmay ameliorate some of the issues vis-a-vis the cement industry

now present. Furthermore, such a process would not address the issues relating to measurement uncertainties using Method 5at low PM concentration levels near its detection limit (i.e.below its practical quantitation limit of3mg), and so there would remain significant technological hurdles to clear before the EPA could require the use ofPM CEMS in respect to this final rule.

The commenter points to PM CEMS

use by European cement kilns. This is

amisplaced comparison. The European calibration and certification ofthis instrumentation is completely different than PS 11 requirements developed by the EPA. European monitoring is certified in a laboratory environment, and calibrated on siteby the instrument vendor when installed. The EPA has a long history ofrequiring CEMS installations in the USA to meet more rigorous calibration and performance specification certification through a series ofcomparisons toreference Method 5test measurements conducted

onthe stack with the flue gas matrix at the facility, not in a controlled laboratory. For a PM CEMS, this would be a correlation developed with Method 5as described in PS 11. The two certification regimes differ greatly in approach and simply adapting European certification standards to USA facilities does nothing to mitigate this difference.

In summary, the EPA has carefully considered the issue and itis our engineeringjudgment thatthe PS 11 correlation will notbe technically or practically achievable for a significant number ofcement kiln sources. Thisis due to the combination ofthe low emissions concentrations, PM CEMS
measurement uncertainty factors, the variability in composition ofcement PM, and need for extraordinarily long
test runs to reduce Method 5 uncertainty to a level that provides normal measurement confidence (i.e. greater than the 3mg practical quantitation level ofMethod 5), plus the

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

compounding uncertainties associated with source operational variability. The EPA further recognizes thatthese problems in developing PS 11 correlations are mostlikely to adversely affect the lowest emitting sources in the category and are more likely to result in violations ofthe rule more often for these sources than for sources operating with higher PM emissions. This result would obviously be environmentally counterproductive. We are therefore amending the standard tobe based on stack testing, and expressing the standard as a not-to-exceed (i.e., stack
test Method 5or 51) standard of0.07 lb/
ton clinker.8

Additional responses regarding these issues, including responses toissues raised in the comments from industry,

are found in sections 3 and 4 ofthe Response to Comment document, which is found in the docket for this rulemaking.

2.Issues Related to Use ofCPMS for Parametric Monitoring

To document continuous compliance with the Method 5 standard (i.e., parametric monitoring designed to monitor proper operation ofPM controls), the EPA proposed thatPM be monitored continuously using a CPMS. See 77 FR 42376-77. The parametric limit was to reflect the highest ofthe three method 5test runs from the stack test, and wouldbe averaged over 30- days. The EPA further proposed corrective action requirements in the
event ofexceeding the 30-day rolling average parametric limit, and a rebuttable presumption that four such exceedances in a calendar year showed

aviolation ofthe emission standard itself.

With respect to the use ofCPMS technology, the EPA has recognized that PM CEMS technology cannot meet PS 11 requirements in allPortland cement installations, yet the EPA has also recognized thatPM CEMS sensors are

more sensitive andbetter at detecting small differences in PM concentration than other technologies such as opacity monitors (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emcl cem/pmcemsknowfina1rep.pdj)In considering the use ofPM CEMS at Portland cement facilities we find that while using PM CEMS technology for continuous quantitative measurement of PM concentration as correlated to Method 5with PS 11 is frequently not

Because the EPA believes that these same issues pertain to measurements of the section 111(b) new

source performance standard for modified sources, and because further controls would beboth costly and not costeffective (see section V.A.3 below), the EPA is adopting the same amendment for modified

new sources under the NSPS. achievable (as stated in the preceding subsection ofthis preamble), usingthe

same technology for continuous qualitative measurement ofPM emissions ispracticable in every instance. Given the information we have that shows PM CEMS technology to be

more sensitive toin-stack PM concentration differences than opacity monitors and nepheolmeters, the EPA

sees a distinct advantage inusing these technologies for continuous parametric PM monitoring, rather than measuring

some other parameter.

In using a PM CEMS as aCPMS to conduct continuous qualitative monitoring ofPM concentration in the stack, we are not interested in specific output information from the instrument (e.g. lbs/ton clinker). We only need to know thatPM concentration increases

or decreases. The signal output from the instrument need notbe correlated to PM concentration through PS 11 trials to achieve this, but rather we can accept the native signal output from the instrument, as is, inmilliamps, and track that signal to determine trends in PM emissions. In thisfinal rule we are requiring PM CPMS instruments to employ a 4-20 milliamp output, which is a standard electronic signal output

common tomany CEMS. 9With a PM CPMS the milliamp output would not represent an opacity value, but like an opacity analyzer, the milliamps would increase as PM concentration increases and decrease as PM concentration decreases. We can then monitor the milliamp signal while conducting a Method 5performance test and correlate the average milliamp signal to the average PM concentration during the testing. This relationship isnotably

coarser in terms ofunderstanding the precise PM concentration in the stack, but the instrument's sensitivity to changing PM concentration in the stack, and its changing milliamp signal output, does not deteriorate and may still be employed to qualitatively monitor PM emissions.

The EPA received numerous comments about ourproposed PM CPMS parametric monitoring approach. Industry commenters maintained that

sources would have to continually retest unnecessarily, since CPMS measure an increase in PM CPMS values. This increase in PM CPMS values would (or

9 Forexample, an opacity instrument uses a series offilters to calibrate the analyzer and produce a "percent opacity" output. Twenty five percent opacity likely correlates to a milliamp value near eight milliamps, or4 milliamps plus 25 percent of the difference between 4 and 20 milliamps (again, 4 milliamps). Fifty percent opacity would represent

a signal near 12 milliamps, and so on, with 20 milliamps representing a signal of 100 percent opacity. atleast, could) denote amodest rise in PM emissions, but actual stack emissions ofPM could still be well below the limit. The EPA recognizes this concern as creating additional burden for facilities exhibiting good control oftheir PM emissions (see section IV.A above), and, therefore, we have modified the process bywhich a

source would establish and comply with their PM CPMS operating limitin this final rule. In doing so we considered scaling options for PM CPMS signals, as they correspond with PM emissions, that were proposed by industry but found the options presented were not protective enough ofthe emission standard. After extensive analysis (see S.Johnson, memo to docketnumber EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, "Establishing an Operating Limit for PM CPMS", November 2012), we are promulgating a scaling factor of75 percent ofthe emission limit as a benchmark. See sectionIV.A above. As in the proposed rule, every source will need to conduct an annual Method 5
test to determine compliance with the PM emissions limit, and during this testing will also monitor theirPM CPMS milliamp output. Sources which emit PM less than 75 percent oftheir emission limitwill be able to scale their PM CPMS milliamp output to determine where their PM CPMS wouldintersect 75 percent oftheir allowed PM emissions, and set their operating level
atthat milliamp output. This alleviates
many re-testing concerns for sources that operate well belowthe emission limit and provides them with greater operational flexibility while still assuring continuous compliance with the PM stack emission standard. It also
creates an incentive for sources to select high efficiency PM controls when

sources are evaluating potential compliance strategies.

For sources whose Method 5 compliance tests place them at or above 75 percent ofthe emission standard, their operating level will be the average PM CPMS milliamp output during the three Method 5test runs. This means their operating level is the milliamp outputthat correlates to theirPM compliance determination, and not the highest average 1hour runvalue that

was in the proposed rule. Nowthat we

are adopting a scaling factor, we no longer believe that itis also appropriate
to establish theparametric limitbased

onthe highest ofthe three runs (which
moreover, couldreflect alevel higher than the level ofthe standard). Moreover, as notedbelow, we believe that onbalance the 30 days of averaged 

### 10019

### 10020 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

CPMS measurements provides ample operating cushion.

In arecent rule (76 FR 15736, March 21, 2011), the EPA established 75 percent ofthe limit as a number that allows for compliance flexibility and is simultaneously protective ofthe emission standard. In this final rule we
are utilizing that value so asnot to impose unintended and costly retest requirements for the lowest emitting

sources and to provide for more cost effective, continuous, PM parametric monitoring across the Portland cement sector. This approach was selected from among many considered as itprovides the greatest amount offlexibility while demonstrating continuous compliance for sources which are the lower emitters in the category and is also effective in holding higher emitters to the emission standard. With this parametric monitoring approach in place we expect

sources to evaluate control options that provide excellent PM emissions control andprovide them greater operational flexibility below the standard.

One commenter maintained that the

use ofa CPMS for parametric monitoring wouldbe "egregious" since the milliamp output ofthe CPMS allowed a source to select operational parameters oftangential relation to PM emissions and would therefore not provide useful information as to proper PM control. The commenter also stated that monitoring ofopacity wouldbe preferable. An industry commenter likewise requested that continuous opacity monitors orbag leak detectors be used rather than CPMS.

The EPA does not agree with these
comments. First, the milliamp output of the CPMS reliably and sensitively indicates increasing or decreasing PM concentration in the stack. Where PM controls are failing, the PM CPMS signal will indicate the increasing concentration ofPM in the stack. A

source will need to monitor the trend from the PM CPMS daily reading to maintain compliance with the 30-day emission standard. Indeed, the EPA has sufficient confidence that four exceedances ofthe CPMS continuous
measurements is a presumptive violation ofthe emission standard itself. Moreover, the CPMS is considerably

more sensitive than an opacity monitor

orbag leak detector at detecting fluctuations in PM level. An opacity monitor determines the percent of a light signal thatis occluded across the stack diameter. Opacity analyzers operate on a zero to 100 percent scale, meaning they are capable ofregistering PM that completely occludes the far stack wall from the instrument light

source. This amount ofPM isroughly equivalent to a complete failure ofthe emission control device. Aproperly operating control device will emit five percent opacity or less, which is barely visible to the naked eye and on the low end ofthe opacity monitor capability. PM emissions thatincrease opacity two percent at this level may well exceed the emission standard, yet they only mildly deflect the opacity monitor output. This same 2percent opacity increase is capable ofregistering changes ofseveral milliamps on a PM CPMS when operating on the scale provided in this final rule. With several decimal fractions available between each milliamp to track signal output, and three or fourmilliamps representing 1percent opacity, the PM CPMS has a clear advantage in low PM concentration measurement over continuous opacity monitoring systems. Regarding baghouse leak detectors, the EPA has no information that shows them operating on the same sensitivity level as PM CPMS technology, and we do not require baghouse leak detection systems on sources where PM CPMS are in use for this reason.

Industry commenters objected tothe proposal that4 calendar year exceedances 10 from the parametric limit would be apresumptive violation ofthe emission standard. Again, the EPA does
not agree. First, the EPA may permissibly establish such a presumption by rule, assuming there is

a reasonable factual basis to do so. See HazardousWaste TreatmentCouncilv. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355, 367-68 (DCCir. 1989) explaining that such presumptions can legitimately establish the elements ofthe agency's prima facie

case in an enforcement action. Second, there is a reasonable basis here for the presumption that four exceedances (i.e. increases over the parametric operating limit) in a calendar year are aviolation ofthe emission standard. The parametric monitoring limit is established as a 30-day average ofthe averaged test value in the performance test, or the 75th percentile value ifthat is higher. In either instance, the 30-day averaging feature provides significant leeway tothe owner operator not to

1 0 In the proposed rule, theEPA referred to a
measurement higher than the parametric limit as a "deviation" and proposed a definition of deviation. See 77 FR 42398. The EPA is not includingthis terminology in this finalrule. The term "deviation" is notin the Portland cement NESHAP rules (which date backto 1998), and has not provednecessary in practice. More important, therule itselfstates what the consequences ofmeasurements which exceed a parametric limit are (i.e.retesting, and in

some instances, a presumptive violation ofthe emission standard itself), so that no further general regulatory provision (i.e.a generalized definition of 'deviation' or similarterm) is necessary. deviate from theparametric operating level since the 30 measurements will significantly dampen variability in the single measurement (average ofthree
test runs) that produced the parametric value. See 77 FR 42377/2 and sources there cited. The EPA acknowledges that the difference was even greaterbetween the parametric level and the emission standard in theproposed rule (which

was based on the highest measured test run). The EPAbelieves thatthe 30-day averaging feature plus the 75-percent scaling feature for the lower emitting

sources nowprovides a sufficient operating cushion. See 77 FR 42377.

3.Existing Source Beyond the Floor Determination

The EPA proposed to use the floor levels for PM as the standard, rejecting

more stringent standards on the grounds ofpoor costeffectiveness (after considering non-air environmental impacts and energy implications ofa
more stringent standard as well). See 77 FR 42376. One commenter argued that the EPA should adopt a beyond the floor standard for PM, maintaining that such

a standard wasjustified under the factors set out in section 112 (d)(2).

The EPA disagrees, and is not adopting a beyond the floor standard. After considering the cost ofthe emission reductions attributable to such

a standard, and the associated non-air and energy impacts of such a standard, the EPA determines thatthe standard is
not "achievable" within the meaning of section 112 (d)(2). Specifically, the EPA estimates that abeyond the floor standard set at the level ofthe original (2010 final rule) standard would only result in 138 tpy-nationwide-of PM reduction (avalue not questioned by any ofthe commenters). See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012. We further estimate thatthe
cost ofachieving this modest incremental reduction wouldbe approximately $37 million (the estimated cost savings attributable to the amended PM standard (including savings attributable to ancillary PM controls related to collection ofPM from the control ofHg, THC, and HCl). See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, included in the rule docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817. These total
costs are high compared to the small nationwide emission reductions, and the cost effectiveness ofthese reductions iscorrespondingly high: approximately $268,000 per ton ofPM removed. This is significantly higher
cost effectiveness for PM than the EPA has accepted in other NESHAP

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

standards. See 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011) (rejecting $48,501 per ton ofPM

as not cost effective for PM emitted by CISWI energy recovery units); see also 72 FR 53814, 53826 (Sept. 20, 2007) (proposing (andlater accepting) cost effectiveness of$10,000 per ton for PM

asreasonable in determining Generally Available Control Technology, and noting that the EPA hadviewed cost effectiveness only as high as approximately $31,000 per ton as reasonable under its Title II program for mobile sources). Abeyond the floor standard at the level ofthe 2010 standard would also involve slightly higher energy use, although this isnot

amajor factor in EPA's decision. EPA is therefore not adopting abeyond the floor standard for PM at the level ofthe 2010 standard. A standard even more stringent would likewise not be justified. See 76 FR 54988.11

4. New Source PM Standard Under Section 112(d)(3)

One commenter challenged the methodology the EPA used in the 2010 rulemaking to establish the new source floor and standard, maintaining that for

new plants, the EPA's floors must reflect the emission level achieved bythe single best performing kiln inthe category, not thebest performing kiln for which the EPA happens to have emissions information. See section 112(d)(3). The EPA did not reopen the methodology bywhich new source floors for this industry are determined. See 77 FR 42373 n. 3 ("The EPA will
not consider comments challenging the data and methodology for the new

source standards since these are unchanged from the 2010 rule and the EPA is not reexamining any ofthese issues.") In any case, ifthe issue is (against the EPA's view) deemed to be reopened, CAA section 112(d)(3) indicates that new source floors are to be based on "the emission control that

11

The commenter's argument that section 112 (d)(2)'s requirement that the EPA consider "the cost ofachieving such emission reduction" limits the EPA to considerations ofeconomic achievability, and not costeffectiveness, is misplaced. See Husqvarna AB v. EPA, 254F. 3d 195,200 (DC Cir. 2001) (cost effectiveness properly considered in evaluating costofcompliance under CAA section 213, a technology-based provision similarto section 112 (d)(2)). The commenter's further argument that the requirement in section 112 (d)(2) for standards
to result in "the maximum degree ofreduction in emissions ofhazardous air pollutants * * * achievable" considering cost and otherfactors constrains the EPA's ability to consider costeffectiveness or otherwise balance the statutory factors has likewise been rejected. See SierraClub

v. EPA, 325 F. 3d 374, 378 (DC Cir. 2003) (theEPA

was left with great discretion in determining how
to balance such factors when considering technology-based standards which are to resultin maximum reductions achievable). is achieved in practice by thebest controlled similar source, asdetermined by theAdministrator"(emphasis supplied). This language affords considerable discretion for the agency to base the NESHAP new source floors on performance of sources for which the agency has emissions information.

B. MercuryStandard

The EPA explained at proposal that reanalysis ofthe mercury floor, after removing CISWI kilns, resulted in a floor of58 lb/MM tons clinker produced-slightly higher than the previously calculated floor and standard of55 lb/MM tons clinker produced. The EPA further proposed to adopt 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced as a beyond-the-floor standard. See 77 FR 42373. The new source standard was unchanged since the standard was based

on the performance ofthe best performing similar source.

The EPA is adopting the standards as proposed. One commenter challenged the appropriateness of adopting a beyond-the-floor standard, not for the industry as a whole, but for itself.As to this individual plant (AshGrove, Durkee), the commenter maintained that the cost ofattaining the three additional lb/MM ton clinker produced reduction (i.e., the difference between 58 and 55 lb/MM tons clinker produced) was greater than the EPA estimated because it would require more thanjust additional carbon in an activated carbon injection system to achieve the incremental difference. According to the commenter, theyhave performed extensive testing and the addition of activated carbon per million actual cubic feet per minute ofexhaust gas has little or no impact on mercury emissions. The commenter states that for plants such as Ash Grove's Durkee plant, there is noknown add-on control technology at this time thatwill assure achievement ofthe standard on a continuous basis.

We note first thatthe commenter is somewhat over-estimating the incremental reduction ofmercury actually needed. To achieve the emission standard, sources will need to operate their processes and controls so that they can achieve the average emissions level used in setting the existing source limitof55 lb/MM tonthe so-called design level. See e.g. 77 FR 42389/3 (estimating emissions attributable to thisfinal rule based on design levels); see also discussion of design values in section VI.B below. That level is 31.7 lb/MM tonfor the standard of55 lb/MM ton. See 75 FR 54976/3. The average for the 58 lb/MM
ton is 34.1 lb/MM ton. The additional reduction needed is therefore 2.4 lb/MM tons, not 3lb/MM tons as stated bythe
commenter.

As the EPA has acknowledged repeatedly, due tothe high levels of mercury in their limestone, mercury emissions from the Ash Grove Durkee plant are not typical ofother plantsin the industry. See, e.g. 75 FR 54978-79. As a result, this plant faces a particularly great challenge in meeting the mercury standard, whether the standard is 55 or 58 lb/MM tons. Because oftheir unique situation, we do
not believe that the difficulties this facility is having inmeeting the mercury standards canbe generalized tothe rest ofthe industry. Section 112(d)(2) ofthe Act posits an industry-wide standard. Having said this, our cost analysis conducted for the 2009 proposal and 2010 final rule assumed thatthis plant would have to install multiple control systems in order to meet the limitfor mercury. See Docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3438. Therefore, ifin this particular case the activated carbon injection (ACI) system cannot achieve the small additional reductions required, then the facility has other mercury control options available such

as further dust shuttling, or treating
cement kiln dust to remove mercury. Dust shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln to other parts ofthe process and is considered a closed loop
process, thereby not causing any waste impacts. In addition, any costs associated with dust shuttling have already been accounted for in the cost estimates the EPA has developed for this particular facility.

The commenter alluded to control performance data that it shared with the EPA. We note thatthe commenter has provided pilot scale data as part ofthe 2010 rulemaking (see Docket itemEPAHQ-OAR-2002-0051-2073), but has not provided data on the effects of increasing carbon injection on mercury emissions for a full scale facility.We
note that in the electric utilityindustry, where there is significantly more experience with ACI, it iswell established that higher carbon injection
rates increase mercury removal (Sjostrom, S.; Durham, M.; Bustard, J. Martin, C.; "Activated Carbon Injection for Mercury Control: Overview", FUEL, 89, 6, 1320 (2010)). There is no datato indicate that ACI systems in the cement industry wouldbehave differently than those in the utility industry. Given the lack ofdata on the efficacy ofincreasing carbon injection rates on mercury removal for full scale cement operations, we cannot conclude that increasing carbon injection isnot a 

### 10021

### 10022 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

reasonable approach for increasing mercury removal efficiency.

C.Standards forFugitiveEmissions FromOpen ClinkerStoragePiles

The EPA proposed that cement kilns control fugitive emissions from open clinker storage piles, defined at proposal

as "any clinker storage pile that is not completely enclosed in abuilding or structure". These piles wouldbe controlled through the use ofwork practices which minimized emissions by means of (amongothers) partial enclosure, damping down the pile by chemical or physical means or shielding piles from wind. These work practices

were drawn from permits for existing
cement kilns, and every cement kiln appears to already be utilizing some type ofwork practice to minimize fugitive emissions from open clinker storage piles. See 77 FR 42378. Cement kiln sources were allowed to select from among the specified workpractices and choose those most suitable for its operations.

For both new and existing sources, the NESHAP is amended to require that

one or more ofthe control measures identified in the rule be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from open clinker storage piles. The work practices would apply to open clinker storage piles regardless ofthe quantity ofclinker or the length oftime thatthe clinker pile is in existence.

In addition,the owner or operator must include as part oftheir operations and maintenance plan (required in §63.1347) the location oftheir open clinker storage piles and the fugitive dust control measures as specified in this rule that willbe implemented to control fugitive dust emissions from open clinker piles. We agree with
comments received thatthe listof allowed workpractices reflects all ofthe available practices documented in
cement kiln facility operating permits to control clinker storage pile fugitive emissions. The size, type and duration ofa clinker pile maywarrant different types ofwork practices. The final rule requires that one or more ofa variety of work practices need tobe employed, recognizing thatthe source will use the work practices that willbe effective for the particular piles. Thus, the EPA has revised the list ofwork practices tobe consistent with those listed in the proposal preamble. These are: Use of partial enclosures, using a water spray

orfogging system, applying appropriate dust suppression agents, using a wind barrier and using a tarp. Commenters also requested thatthe EPA allow other work practices ifapproved by the delegated authority. Our regulations already provide procedures for sources to seek approval of alternative work practices. See section 112(h)(3) as implemented by 40 CFR 63.8(f). Several industry commenters stated that the definition ofclinker pile is problematic asproposed because it was not limited by size or duration. Commenters note that itis not

uncommon for small amounts ofclinker
to be dropped, or to fall off afrontloader onto the ground when being moved from a kilnto a storage location

or from such a location to the grinding mill. Because these are small amounts of clinker, it is also not uncommon that these small quantities ofclinker will remain where they were dropped and
may not be picked up or removed until the necessary manpower becomes available; in some cases this could be multiple days. Another industry
commenter noted thatbecause ofthe short-term duration oftemporary clinker stockpiles, the use ofwork practices similar tothose proposed for clinker storage piles is not feasible. The industry trade association suggested the following definition: "Open clinker storage pile means an outdoor, unenclosed accumulation ofclinker on the ground, which contains in excess of 50,000 tons ofclinker, and is utilized for

a continuous period in excess of 180 days." Under this suggested approach, only a clinker storage pile meeting this definition wouldbe subject to the work practice standards.

We are not adopting this approach. We believe that the potential to emit may be different at different sites for a variety ofreasons such as weather and traffic conditions. Nor did the
commenter provide information indicating that open clinker storage piles ofless than 50,000 tons or stored for less than 180 days are unlikely to produce fugitive emissions. Indeed, as a result ofweather, traffic or other conditions, smaller piles stored for shorter periods have the evident potential to emit substantial levels of fugitive emissions. Nor is any such uniformly applicable distinction based

on duration evident. Clinker piles can be temporary but be replaced by a new pile at the same (or nearby) location a few days later, with no essential difference in fugitive emissions.

Nonetheless, we believe that the
commenter is correct that spills are unavoidable, and that workpractices designed for non-temporary piles cannot feasibly be applied in such circumstances. The commenter is also
correct that workpractices used for nontemporary piles wouldbe misapplied to temporary piles attributable to cleaning storage structures. For these reasons, the definition of"open storage pile" excludes these types ofpiles. Specifically, the definition ofopen clinker storage pile does not include temporary piles ofclinker that are the result ofaccidental spillage or temporary use ofoutdoor storage while clinker storage buildings arebeing cleaned. This final rule defines "temporary" to mean piles that remain in place for 3days orless from their generation (3days accommodating weekend scheduling). This is sufficient time to either pick these spills up (the applicable workpractice for these spills)

orto cover them to prevent fugitive emissions.

These final amendments will result in

a cost savings to the industry as compared to the 2010 rule. As a result ofrequiring work practices instead of enclosures, we estimate thatthere will be a savings of$8.25 million annually. See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.

D.September9,2015, ComplianceDate fortheAmendedExistingSource Standards

The EPA proposed to establish September 9, 2015, as the compliance date for the amended existing source NESHAP standards. The basic reason for the proposed compliance date was that the proposed change in the PM standard made possible different compliance alternatives for all ofthe stack emission standards, and that itcould legitimately take twoyears from the original compliance date to implement these

new compliance strategies. See 77 FR 42385-87. Further, the amended compliance date would apply to all of the stack emission standards due to the interrelatedness ofthe standards: the
mercury, THC and HCl standards all typically involve some element ofPM generation and capture and so the controls must be integrated with PM control strategies. Id. at 42386.

The record for this final rule supports the need for the September 9, 2015 compliance date. With respect to PM control, as the EPA explained at proposal, plants now havethe option of retaining electrostatic precipitators (ESP)with modification or downstream polishing baghouses, rather than replacing ESP with baghouses. Plants may also size baghouses differently (withor without incorporation of upstream or downstream polishing elements). The various types of sorbent injection strategies to control organics,
mercury and HCl, are affected by the PM limits (andvice versa). Based onthe facts ofthis record for this sourceFederal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

category, the type, size and alternatives touse ofResidual Thermal regime takes time. Specifically, plants aggressiveness ofthe controls for these Oxidizers. See generally, Final Portland will need to conduct engineering HAP, as well as the PM controls, are not Cement Reconsideration Technical studies, determine the most costonlyinterdependent but can all change Support Document, section 3.1, effective control strategy, seek contract

as a result ofthe amended PM standard. December 2012, in the docket for this bids, purchase equipment, install and In addition, the amended alternative rulemaking. test the new equipment. Below is an oHAP standard affords additional Determining, developing, installing, estimate ofa timeline for a cement kiln compliance alternatives for control of testing and otherwise implementing a to undertake these steps. non-dioxin organic HAP, including different comprehensive HAP control

TIME NEEDED To PREPARE FOR COMPLIANCE

[Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505-Al]

Steps in preparing for compliance Time period

N

ew engineering study ................................................................................................................................................... January- April 2013

. Selection of technology providers .................................................................................................................................. April- August 2013

. Technology procurement

................................................................................................................................................ August- D ecember2013

. Detailed technology design and final engineering

......................................................................................................... January-June 2014. Equipment fabrication and permitting

............................................................................................................................. June- D ecember 2014. Construction and tying into existing operation

............................................................................................................... January-May 2015. Technology commissioning

............................................................................................................................................ June-August 2015

.

One commenter, sharply opposing any change in compliance date, maintained that all ofthis reasoning is hypothetical and that such a consequential extension could not legitimately rest on speculation. The EPA disagrees that this analysis is speculative. First, the EPA's engineering judgment isthat the changes inthe PM standard and alternative oHAP standard, open up different compliance alternatives from those under the 2010 rule. The EPA has indicated what those alternatives canbe, and the timeneeded
to determine, purchase, install and test them. Comments from the affected industry are consistent with the EPA's engineeringjudgment as tothe type of different compliance approaches now available for existing sources.

The EPA's engineering determinations

as to the time needed for cement kilns
to implement a different multi-HAP control strategy here are moreover consistent with the agency's longstanding analysis (i.e.analysis not specific tothe cement industry) ofthe time needed toinstall multipollutant control systems. See US EPA, Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation ofControl Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/073, October 2002) (cited at 77 FR 42386). Therefore, the EPA estimated thatitis normal for the development and implementation of

new compliance measures to take between 15-27 months for single control systems, and longer for systems involving multiple controls for HAP and criteria pollutants, as is the case here.

The record to this rule also contains

a survey of92 ofthe 97 domestic
cement kilns currently in operation. These survey results document, on a kiln by kilnbasis, alternative engineering strategies now available to these kilns as a result ofthe amended PM standard and also documents the time each kiln estimates would be needed to carry out these new compliance strategies. See Comments of PCA, Appendix D (EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0817-0505). For example, kiln B 12 has the option ofmodifying itsESP system using a hybrid ESP/baghouse filter system, or of using a cyclone upstream ofthe ESP. Steps needed to implement these possibilities include main stack evaluation, cooler stack testing, and evaluation, vendor/
contractor selection, final design, equipment procurement and fabrication, startup and commissioning, and demonstrating compliance. The plant has already commenced some ofthese steps, but provides reasonable time estimates for why itwould take until September 2015 to complete them. Kiln Q1 3expects to be able to retain its ESP system (whereas itcould not under the 2010 final rule), but needs to resize its dust conveying system, upgrade the ESP, and utilize a larger activated carbon injection system differently from planned (since an ESP will not capture mercury as would a baghouse). Steps involved in developing and implementing a system include reviewing the structural integrity ofthe existing ESP, obtaining proposals on ESP upgrades, relocating an existing

12For competitiveness reasons, kilns in this

survey areidentified by letter. The survey results

are consistent with the EPA's engineering understanding andjudgment, and the EPA has no

reason to dispute the overall survey results (although some details maybe open to question).

13These examples were chosen atrandom by the EPA from the survey information provided inthe
comment. stack adjacent tothe existing ESP, complete stack design, order equipment for ESP upgrades, order a new stack,
contract construction, perform necessary construction, modify the ESP

as needed, evaluate CEMS performance and conduct stack testing and make any adjustments tothe integrated control system. Again, reasonable timelines for carrying out these steps are provided.

Neither the EPA northe industry has said definitively what each kiln will do andhow long it will take. Untilthe standards are finalized, no such definitive pronouncement ispossible. However, the record isquite specific that additional control strategies are

now possible; what the range ofthose

new control strategies are; thatthe strategies are interrelated so thatthe standards for PM, organics, mercury and HCI are all implicated; and the time needed to carry out the various strategies. Thus, the commenter is mistaken that the record regarding the need for a compliance date of September 2015 is merely conjectural.

The EPA solicited comment on the possibility ofa shorter extension for the stack emission standards, noting thatby virtue ofthe 2010final rule, the industry was not starting from scratch but could already undertake compliance steps. See 77 FR42386/3. The survey results referred to above confirm that this is the case, since anumber ofplants (to their credit)indicated that they have taken preliminary steps toward compliance such as conducting stack testing, and testingvarious control strategies (e.g., survey results for kilns A, F and G). Nonetheless, many commenters made the evident point that this preliminary work could only go so far when there was uncertainty about 

### 10023

### 10024 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the final standard anduncertainty around which standard would determine their final control strategy. Moreover, even those plants which had begun preliminary compliance steps indicated (with specific timelines provided) that theremaining work would legitimately stretch through the

summer of2015.

This same record refutes those
comments maintaining that an even longer compliance extension isneeded. Not only is this inconsistent with the EPA's own estimates, but the industry
survey results document that nofurther time is needed. See CAA section 112(i)(3)(A) (compliance with CAA section 112(d) standards tobe as expeditious as practicable). Therefore, the EPA is revising the compliance date for existing sources for PM, THC, HCI, and Hg to be September 9, 2015.

However, the EPA is establishing February 12, 2014, as the compliance date for the standards for existing open clinker piles. These standards are not inter-related tothe stack emission standards, and so need not be on the

same timeline. The work practices we

are adopting as the standards reflect practices already in place throughout the entire industry. The time needed to

come into compliance consequently is
to establish a reporting and recordkeeping apparatus, and in some instances to obtain approval (after appropriate demonstration) to use work practices not enumerated in the standard. The EPA estimates that these various steps should not exceed twelve months. Since section 112(i)(3)(A) requires compliance to be as expeditious as practicable, the EPA is establishing a 12 month compliance period for these standards.

A compliance date for an amended standard must still be "as expeditiou[s]

aspracticable" and not more than 3 years. Webelieve a compliance extension is appropriate where, as here, for the stack emission standards, the amended result in a compliance regime differs from the initial rule and additional time isneeded to develop, install, and implement the controls needed to meet the amended standard. The EPA has shown thatto be the case here, as explained above.

The Sierra Club inits comments also argued thatthe EPA could not change the 2013 compliance date in the 2010 final rule as a matter oflaw. The
commenter rests this argument on CAA sections 112(d)(7) and 112(i)(3)(A). We have responded above to the argument based on section 112(d)(7). Section 112(d)(7) simply is not an antibacksliding provision (or, at the least, does not have tobe interpreted that way).

CAA Section 112(i)(3)(A) states in relevant part: "[a]fter the effective date of any emissions standard, limitation or regulation * * *the Administrator shall establish a compliance date or dates for each category or subcategory of existing sources, which shall provide for compliance as expeditiously as practicable, but in no eventlater than 3
years after the effective date of such standard".

In NRDCv. EPA (Plywood MA CT), 489 F. 3d 1364, 1373-74 (D.C. Cir. 2007) the court held that "only the effective date of Section 112 emissions standards
matters when determining the maximum compliance date." 489 F. 3d
at 1373 (emphasis original). The EPA, therefore, lacked authority to extend the compliance date when it was only adjusting reporting terms. Id. at 1374. The opinion implies, however, that the EPA may reset the compliance date when the EPA amends the actual standard, ashere. Ifthe statute provided

an absolute bar on the EPA extending an effective date, there was no reason for the court to distinguish the situation where the EPA amends some ancillary feature ofthe rule from the situation where the EPA amends the actual standard. 14

The reason it makes sense for the EPA
to have the authority toreestablish a compliance date when it amends a MACT standard isevident. In a technology-based regime like section 112(d), ifthe technology basis ofthe standard changes with a change ofthe standard, it takes time to adopt the revised controls. This result fits the statutory text.

14 Sierra Club maintains that because the revisions to the PM standard leave that standard nearly as stringent as the 2010 standard, all that has effectively changed is the standard's averaging time. Sierra Club likens this situation to the amendments
to ancillary provisions like reporting at issue in PlywoodMACT.This is incorrect. First,as explained in section V.A. above, the standard did increase numerically as a result ofremoving commercial incinerators from the database. Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, June 15, 2012, Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0225. Second, although the amended PM standard is relatively as stringent

as the 2010 standard (75 FR 54988/2 and 77 FR 42389/3), it nonetheless affords different compliance options forall of the standards, as explained above and infurther detail in the Response to Comment document. The standard allows flexibility forthose days when emissions increase as a result ofnormal operating variability, without significantly affecting the long-term average performance for PMand affords different compliance opportunities as a result.Nor does the
commenter consider the amendment to the alternative oHAP standard, which amendment likewise affords new compliance opportunities. Where the EPA has amended an existing source MACT standard, the compliance date for that amended standard mustbe as expeditious as practicable, and no later than 3years from its effective date. Sierra Club argues that the original standard (the

one thathasbeen amended) must nonetheless take effect, but that standard no longer exists. Ithasbeen amended. Moreover, the result of Sierra Club's approach would force sources to install one technology and rip itout in short order to install another. Congress
cannot have mandated this result. See PCA v. EPA,655 F. 3d at 189 (staying NESHAP standards for clinker pilesthat is, effectively extending their compliance date-because "the standards could likely change substantially. Thus, industry should not have to build expensive new containment structures until the standard is finally determined.") 1516 Moreover, in the extreme case where the initial standard was outright technically infeasible by any source (andwas amendedby the EPA to correct this defect), Sierra Club's reading would leave sources with literally no legitimate compliance option. 17Technology-based standards simply do not workthis way.

15In a variant ofthis argument, Sierra Club maintains that in a situation where the compliance date for aninitial existing source MACT standard has not yetpassed and the EPA amended that standard to make it more stringent, the EPA would nonetheless leave the predecessor less stringent standard in place andrequire compliance with it. Although this situation has not arisen, the EPA would presumablybe governed by the same principle noted by thePCA court: is the technology basis for the standard changing in such a way as to require more time for compliance and in a way that negates the compliance strategyof the initial rule. (Ofcourse, ifthe compliance date ofa standard has already occurred and a standard is later amended, that compliance date would not change retroactively.)

16Sierra Club maintains thatPCA is distinguishablebecause itinvolved a standard which the EPA was compelled to change. First, the
comment is factually mistaken. The EPA had granted reconsideration of the clinkerpile standards but had notindicated that the standards
would be amended. See 76 FR 28325/1 (May 17, 2011). Nor did the court indicatethat the pile standards must change. Rather, "[b]ecause EPA will

now bereceiving comments for the firsttime, the standards couldlikely change substantially." 655 F.
3d at 189 (emphasis supplied). Thus, the court effectively reset the compliance date because ofa potential future change inthe rule which could result in a compliance regime which differed from
that in the 2010 final rule. This is directly parallel to the situation now presented by the amended PM and alternative oHAP standards.

17

An example is the startup and shutdown
standard for HCl in the 2010 final rule. The EPA established this standard as zero on the mistaken assumption that no chlorine could bepresent inthe
kiln during there periods. See 76 FR 28325 (granting consideration on this basis). The commenter's approach would leave thistechnically infeasible standard and its compliance date inplace
without recourse.

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

E.EligibilityToBe a New Source Under NESHAP

CAA section 112(a)(4) states that a

new source is a stationary source if "the construction or reconstruction ofwhich is commenced after the Administrator first proposes regulations under this section establishing an emissions standard applicable to such source." As

we explained previously, there is some ambiguity in the language "first proposes" and such language could refer to different dates in different circumstances, such as the first time the Agency proposes any standards for the

source category, the first timethe Agency proposes standards under a particular rulemaking record forthe

source category, or the first timethe Agency proposes a particular standard.

In the proposed reconsideration rule, the EPA proposed to retain May 6, 2009,

as the date which determines new

source eligibility and solicited comment

onthis issue. Industry commenters statedthat we should change the date for determining new source status from May 9, 2009 to July 18, 2012, the date ofthe proposed reconsideration rule. In support, they asserted thatthey will not know what the final standards are until

we finalize the reconsideration rule. We disagree withthe commenters' suggestion and are retaining the May 6, 2009 date as the date that determines whether a source is a new source under CAA section 112(a)(4).

As we explained at proposal, itis reasonable toretain the May 6, 2009 date as the date the Agency "first proposed" standards for this source category. This isthe date that EPA first proposed these standards under this particular rulemaking record. Today's action is a reconsideration action, and although it revises the particulate matter

new source standard, itis premised on the same general rulemaking record. It is thus reasonable to view the date EPA "first proposes" standards tobe the May 2009 date. Further, industry
commenters essentially advocate an approach whereby any timethe Agency changes a new source standard, in any way, on reconsideration, the new source trigger date would change. Such aresult is not consistent with Congress' intent in defining the term "new source" in section 112(a)(4), tobe the date the Agency "first proposes" standards. Furthermore, EPA notes that the new

source standards finalized today are

ones that will be met, in our view, using the same or similar control technologies

as would be used to meet the standards issued in May 2010, and commenters have not disputed this conclusion. See 77 FR 42387. VI. Summary ofCost, Environmental, Energy andEconomic Impacts

A. Whatarethe affectedsources?

As noted in theproposed rule, the EPA estimates thatby 2013 there will be 100 Portland cement manufacturing facilities located in the U.S. and Puerto Rico that are expected to be affected by this final rule, and that approximately 5 ofthose facilities are new greenfield facilities. All these facilities will operate 156 cement kilns and associated clinker coolers. Ofthese kilns, 23 are CISWI kilns. These havebeen removed from

our data set usedto establish existing

source floors. Based on capacity expansion data provided by the PCA, by 2013 there will be 16 kilns and their associated clinker coolers subject to NESHAP new source emission limits for PM, mercury, HCl and THC, and 7kilns and clinker coolers subject to the amended NSPS for nitrogen oxide and SO 2. Some ofthese new kilns will be built at existing facilities and some at

new greenfield facilities.

B. How didtheEPA evaluatethe impactsoftheseamendments?

For these final amendments, we determined whether additional control
measures, workpractices and monitoring requirements wouldbe required by cement manufacturing facilities to comply with the amended rules, incremental to the 2010 final standards (since any other comparison would result in double counting). For
any additional control measure, work practice or monitoring requirement we determined the associated capital and annualized cost that would be incurred by facilities required to implement the

measures. Finally, we considered the
extent to which any facility in the industry would find it necessary to implement any ofthe additional

measures in order to comply with these final amendments. Using this approach,

we assessed potential impacts from the proposed revisions.

These final amendments to the 2010 rule are expected to result in lower costs for the Portland cement industry. The final amendment to the PM standard affords alternative, less costly compliance opportunities for existing

sources. See section V.D above. These could be utilizing existing PM control devices rather than replacing them (for example, retaining an ESP or a smaller baghouse), or supplementing existing PM control rather thanreplacing it (puttingpolishing controls ahead ofthe primary PM control device, for instance). Compliance strategies for the other HAP, all ofwhich involve some element ofPM control, also may be affected. Cost savings from these alternatives couldbe significant. There

are also potential cost savings associated with the amended oHAP alternative standard (whichnow maybe aviable compliance alternative for some sources since issues ofreliable analytic
measurement have been resolved). Following proposal, industry submitted kiln specific information on likely changes in compliance strategy resulting from the proposed amendments so that

we are nowbetter able to estimate potential savings resultingfrom the final amendments. Based on an industry survey of 18 Portland cement facilities (20 kilns) after proposal (see Docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817-0505, Appendix D), it appears thatthe amendments may have the following effects, which may result in savings in capital and annual costs associated with implementing control technologies for these pollutants:

* Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) may not need tobe installed due
to the amended oHAP alternative.



### * Carbon injection rates may be lowered or not required for THC control.

* Existing PM controls (ESP and baghouse) may not need to be replaced, but may instead be upgraded.

* Additional PM controls may not have to be implemented.

* Polishing and hybrid filter configurations may be implemented instead oftotal replacements.

There are also certain costs, and cost savings, associated with other provisions ofthe final amendments. There maybe a difference in costs of stack testing for PM and use ofa CPMS, rather than use ofa PM CEMS. In addition, there are cost savings when changing from a PM CEMS compliance demonstration to a CPMS demonstration. For example as part of the PS 11 calibration requirements, a minimum of 15 Method 5testruns are required to develop a correlation curve, with no limitto the maximum number oftest runs. Omitting the need forthese multiple test runs will save the facility

aminimum of$20,000 per kiln (each Method 5test costs $5,000). At a savings of$20,000 per kiln,nationwide savings for 133 new and existing kilns, would be $2.7 million per year. However, the CPMS is the same type ofdevice as a PM CEMS, so the capital cost ofthe CPMS would not be significantly different than the CEMS device.

The final revisions to the alternative organic HAP standard (from 9 ppm to 12
ppm, reflecting the analytic method practical quantitation limit)would allow more sources to select this compliance alternative and demonstrate compliance without needing to install 

### 10025

### 10026 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

very expensive and energy-intensive RTO. In addition, providing parametric monitoring flexibilities (notpresent in the 2010 final rule)will provide lower
costs for thebetter-performing sources in the industry. See section IV.B above. We have quantified these savings (see Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, Section 3).

The revisions tothe standard for open clinker storage piles codify current fugitive dust control measures already required bymost states, so no impacts

are expected. These final standards would be significantly less expensive than the controls for open piles in the 2010 final rule, which required enclosures in all instances. We estimate that the savings to industry over the 2010 rule willbe $8.25 million annually. See Final Portland Cement Reconsideration Technical Support Document, December 20, 2012, in this rulemaking docket.

We have estimated the additional industry cost associated with the affirmative defense to civil penalties provisions. We estimate the additional
costis $3,258 peryear for the entire industry. See Supporting Statement in the docket.

One ofthe final revisions would allow

sources that control HCl with dry scrubbers to use periodic performance testing and parametric monitoring rather than monitoring compliance with an HCl CEMS. This will provide those

sources with additional flexibility in complying with the HCl standard.

The revision to the alternative PM emissions limitprovisions merely recognizes that sources other than the clinker cooler may combine their exhaust with the kiln exhaust gas and
corrects the equation for calculating the alternative limit. Therefore, there shouldbe no impacts from this revision.

The amendments provide for work practices rather than numerical standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The work practice standards reflect common industry practices, so there shouldbe no costs associated with them. There should alsobe substantial savings associated with the work practices.

At an annual cost of about $51,000
per year ($22,800per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A test for THC + $20,000 per year for Method 321 test for HCl), the final revisions for new testing and monitoring ofcoal mills thatuse kiln exhaust gases to dry coal and exhaust through aseparate stack are not expected tohave significant impacts.

The revisions would make existing kilns that undergo a modification, as defined by NSPS, subject to a PM standard of0.07 lb/ton clinker, 3-run average. There maybe less costly compliance alternatives under the amended standard, similar to alternatives available under the amended existing source NESHAP for PM.

C. Whataretheairqualityimpacts?

In these final amendments, emission limits for mercury, THC and HCl are unchanged from the 2010 rule. Thus, there is no change in emissions from the 2010 rule for these HAP and HAP surrogates. The alternative HAP organic standard isbeing amended to 12 ppm, which is the analytic method practical quantitation limitbased onthe performance test method detection limit of4ppm. The impact on emission levels due to this change is not clear since measuring below the quantitation limit does notyield a value with enough certainty to represent the actual level. Thus, a measurement below 12 ppm could very well actually be 12 ppm or something less. For PM, the limit for existing sources changes from 0.04 lb/
ton clinker 30-day average to 0.07 lb/ton clinker based on stack testing. The PM limit for new sources also changed: To 0.02 lb/ton clinker stack test from 0.01 lb/ton clinker 30-day average. The final changes in the PM standards, while not significant in absolute terms, may result in asmall increase intotal nationwide emissions by allowing slightly more variability, although, as noted at proposal, we estimate thatdesign values will be essentially identical underthe 2010 and this final standard. 77 FR 42389. As explained in the impacts analysis for the 2010 rule (seeDocket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3438), emission reductions were estimated by comparingbaseline emissions to the long-term average emissions ofthe MACT floor kilns. As a practical matter, plants operate to comply with thislower average emissions level (the so-called design level), rather thanthe emissions limit, so that on those days where there is normal operating variability they do
not exceed the emissions limit. See 77
FR 42386-87. Under the 2010 rule, the average PM emissions from the existing floor kilns were 0.02296 lb/ton clinker. Under the amended standard, the
average PM emissions ofthe existing floor kilns is calculated to be 0.02655 lb/ton clinker although, as noted, this difference is less than the normal analyticvariability in PM measurement methods and so mustbe viewed as directional rather than precisely quantitative. The average emissions for

new kilns did not change as we believe

new sources will have to adopt identical control strategies as under the promulgated standards. We, therefore,

are not estimating an emission increase from new kilns. Forexisting kilns, with

an increase in PM emissions under this final rule of0.00359 lb/ton clinker compared to the 2010 rule, nationwide emissions ofPM wouldincrease by 138

tons per year (0.00359 x 76,664,662/ 2000). Thus, the EPA estimates thatthe main effect ofthis final rulefor PM will be to provide flexibility for those days when emissions increase as aresult of normal operatingvariability, but would
not significantly alter long-term average performance for PM. Nonetheless, as explained in section V.D above, this change does allow for changes in compliance strategies in the form of types, sizes and sequencing oftreatment trains.

Emission reductions under the 2010 rule andthis final rule, in 2015, are compared in Table 4.

TABLE 4-COMPARISON OF NATIONWIDE PM EMISSIONS FROM 

### 2010 RULE TO FINAL RULE IN 

### 2015

Kiln type 2010 rule Final rule Increment

Emissions limit (lb/ton clinker

.............................. Existing

......................... 0.04

........ ......... 0.07

.............................. NA (30-day average with a (3-run stack test)

CEMS). MACT average emissions for compliance (lb/ton Existing

......................... 0.02296

........................ 0.02655

........................ 0.00359

clinker. 2010 baseline emissions (C ISW I kilns removed)

....................................... 11,433

.......................... 11,433

.......................... NA (tons/yr). Nationwide emissions reduction (tons/yr)

........... Total

............................. 10,540

.......................... 10,402

.......................... - 138

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

One commenter noted thatthe compliance extension will result in two additional years of HAP emissions at pre-standard levels, noting especially the emission ofPM, notingfurther that fine PM (PM2. 5)is causally associated with mortality and serious morbidity effects at a population level. See, e.g., 77 FR 38909 (June 29, 2012). Wenote first that these rules are technology-based,
not risk-based, and thatthere are compelling reasons to amend the PM standard and to establish new compliance dates for existing sources as

a result of technological limitations with the 2010 rule PM standard, and the new compliance opportunities afforded as a result ofthe amendment to that standard. See section V.D above. We also question the commenter's premise that all ofthe predicted emission reductions andbenefits would accrue if the existing source CEM-based PM standards tookeffect in September 2013. As explained at length in sectionV.A above and in other comment responses, PM CEMS would not reliably measure the level ofthe PM standard in many instances. One cannot assume the full range ofemission reductions (and consequent health benefits) would

accrue in the real world ifthe emission
measurements themselves are uncertain. Thus, in a meaningful sense, today's amendments result in aregime where the required emission reductions will be reliably measured, so thatthe rule's health benefits will reliably occur.

D. Whatarethe waterqualityimpacts?

At proposal, we believed thatnone of the amendments being proposed would have significant impacts on water quality and thatto the extent that the revision affecting dry caustic scrubbers encourages their use, some reduction in
water consumption may occur although

we had no information upon which to base a quantified estimate. We received

no comments questioning this
assessment. Further, in reviewing the industry survey information on the impacts ofthe proposed changes, only 1ofthe 20 kilns for which information

was provided was considering the addition ofa wet scrubber, although it

was also evaluating a dry scrubber (see docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817- 0505, Appendix D, kiln S). Therefore,

we continue tobelieve that these final amendments will not significantly impact water quality.

E.Whatarethesolidwaste impacts?

None ofthe amendments being finalized with this final rule are expected tohave any solid waste impacts. 18

F. Whatarethesecondaryimpacts?

Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will result from the increased electricity usage associated with the operation ofcontrol devices as well as water quality and solid waste impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of these amendments. Because we are finalizing revisions that slightly reduce the stringency ofthe existing source emission limits for PM from the promulgated 2010 limits, we project that

some facilities will alter their strategy for complying with the standards for the four pollutants to achieve compliance at

a lower cost than possible under the original standard. The survey results discussed in section V.D above confirm the EPA's engineering judgment. Other facilities in the survey that were not able tomeet the THC limitor the alternative organic HAP limitin the 2010 rule were considering the installation ofRTO. Because some of these facilities may nowmeet the limit without the installation of an RTO, we have estimated a reduction of24,702
tons per year less CO 2 emissions being emitted to the atmosphere (equivalent to 2less RTO's being installed). As a result ofthe organic HAP limitbeing revised from 9 ppm to 12 ppm, these sources responded that they now had other less costly alternatives. The additional compliance time was also cited as a factor that would gives sources the additional time they needed to consider other HAP control alternatives to RTO. As the industry survey highlights, these types ofdeterminations will be made for each facility based on site-specific characteristics such as process type, equipment age, existing air pollution controls, raw material and fuel characteristics, economic factors and others. In general, this survey indicates that the combination ofthe revised limits for PM and organic HAP as well

as the September 2015 compliance date will give sources the opportunity to develop less costly and less aggressive compliance strategies. We do not have enough information to quantify the impact ofoverall secondary impacts,

18Although dust shuttlingis likely to be one element ofmercury compliance strategy, the
amount ofdust shuttlingwould notincrease incremental to the 2010 final rule sincethe standards for new and existing sources arethe same in the 2010 final rule and these amendments. Moreover, as explained in section V.B above, even with respect to the high mercury feed source, dust shuttling entails moving dust from within the kiln
to other parts ofthe process and is considered a closed loop process, thereby not causing anywaste impacts. (withthe exception ofthe CO 2 reductions noted above), but we believe the impacts would in factbe reduced relative to the 2010 rule since less energy is expected tobe needed for facilities that can retain and upgrade their current controls, instead offor example, installing additional controls in series.

G. Whataretheenergyimpacts?

As discussed in the preceding section, because ofthe final revisions to the PM emission limits, the organic HAP limits and the compliance date extension,

some facilities will develop more cost effective and less energy intensive compliance strategies. For three ofthe facilities (fivekilns) that were part of the industry survey, all five kilns required significant changes to meet the 2010 THC standard, in part because they

were not pursuing the alternative organic HAP alternative standard due to analytic measurement uncertainties. See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817- 0505, Appendix D (kilnsA, C andD, and F and G). Priorto the proposed revisions, all five ofthe kilns were considering RTO as a control option as well as other options including catalytic ceramic filtration, a relatively new technology and as yet, not completely demonstrated technology for the cement industry. In response to the survey of what changes, ifany, the facilities would make in response tothe proposed revisions, all three facilities indicated that the amended organic HAPlimit or the September 2015 compliance date allowed them to consider the use ofless capital intensive alternatives and to continue testing alternatives for THC reduction other than the highly energyintensive RTO for the five kilns involved. Although we cannot accurately predict for the entire industry the extent to which these site-specific compliance strategies may affect energy demands, the industry survey results indicate a trend toward less energy intensive strategies than RTO, and as noted above, we predict a reduction in

CO 2 emissions due to less energy use as

aresult of two fewer kilns installing RTOs.

H. Whatarethecostimpacts?

Under the cost scenario discussed above, we estimate thatthere couldbe savings of approximately $52 million associated with alternative compliance strategies for meeting amended PM standards, making corresponding adjustments in compliance strategies for the organic HAP and requiring work practice for open clinker storage piles. Table 5 summarizes the costs and emissions reductions ofthisfinal action. 

### 1002710028 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5-SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS OF THE FINAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY NESHAP RELATIVE TO THE 

### 2010 RULEabcde

PM emissions PM emissions Emission Proposed amendment Annualized cost reduction reduction 2010 rule 2012 rule change tpy

Revised PM

,oHAP standard

..................... ($42.2 million) f

........................................... 10,540 tons

...... 10,402 tons

...... 138 increase. Replace PM CEMS with PM CPMS

....... ($2.7 million)

............................................. 0. Coal Mill Testing

........................................ $1.3 million

............................................. .. 0

. Open clinker storage pile work practices

... ($8.25 million)

........................................... 0.

Total

.................................................... ($51.85 million).

a Parentheses indicate cost savings. All costs are in 2005 dollars. bWe also estimate that there will be a one-time cost of $25,000 for each facility to revise their operation and maintenance plan to include procedures to minimize emissions during periods of startup and shutdown.

cEmissions reductions are the total once full compliance is achieved in 2015.
d Full compliance costs will not occur until September 9, 2015. eNote emission reductions published in the 2010 rule included CISWI kilns, but the reductions in this table reflect reductions since CISWI kilns

were removed from the database.

fIncludes cost savings due to revised PM standard.

The cost information in Table 5is in 2005 dollars at a discount rate of 7 percent. The EPA did not have sufficient information to quantify the overall change inbenefits or impacts in emissions for 2013 to 2015.

With regard tothe coal mill monitoring requirements in this action,

sources with integral coal mills that exhaust through a separate exhaust would potentially incur a capital cost of $36,000 to install a continuous flow
meter. The annualized cost ofa flow
meter is $11,000. Because this final rule allows the use ofmaximum design flow
rate instead ofinstalling flowmeters, we believe that most facilities will take advantage ofthis and will notincur these costs. Annual testing at these coal mills for mercury, THC and HCIwill
cost about $51,000 ($22,800 per Method 30B test for mercury + $8,000 per year for Method 25A test for THC + $20,000
per year for Method 321 test for HCI). Using information supplied bythe industry (see docket item EPA-HQOAR-2011-0817-0612), approximately 26 facilities wouldbe affected by these requirements for an annual cost of$1.3 million. Costs for coal mills to meet the PM limits for this NESHAP are not included, since all equipment and monitoring are in place to meet requirements of Subpart Y andthus are not considered additional costs.

With the final change to PM CPMS instead ofCEMS, itis estimated that the elimination ofthe PS correlation tests will result in a savings of $20,000 per kiln.

L Whatarethehealth effects ofthese pollutants?

In this section, we provide a qualitative description ofbenefits associated with reducing exposure to PM2
.5, HCl andmercury. Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient concentrations ofPM 2.5 as aco-benefit. Reducing exposure to PM2. 5is associated with significant human health benefits, including avoiding mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in

numerous toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009). 19 When adequate data and

resources are available and a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) isrequired, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects associated with exposure to PM2.5 (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2011).20 These health effects include premature mortality for adults and infants, cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute and chronic bronchitis, hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted activity days and respiratory symptoms. Although the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes including adverse effects onbirth weight,pre-term births, pulmonary function and other cardiovascular and respiratory effects, the scientific literature suggests that exposure to PM 2.5is also associated with these impacts (U.S.EPA, 2009). PM2. 5 also increases light extinction, which is

19U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. IntegratedScienceAssessment for Particulate Matter(Final Report). EPA-600-R-08- 139F. National Centerfor Environmental Assessment-RTP Division. Available on the Internet

athttp://cfpub.epa.govlncealcfmlrecordisplay.cfm?
deid=216546.

20U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport ofFine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States; Correction ofSIP Approvals for 22 States. Office ofAir and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available on the Internet at http:// www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf. an important aspect ofvisibility (U.S. EPA, 2009).

HC is a corrosive gas that can cause irritation ofthe mucous membranes of the nose, throat and respiratory tract. Brief exposure to 35 ppm causes throat irritation, and levels of50 to 100 ppm

are barely tolerable for 1 hour.21 The greatest impact is onthe upper respiratory tract; exposure to high concentrations can rapidly lead to swelling and spasm ofthe throat and suffocation. Most seriously exposed
persons have immediate onset ofrapid breathing, blue coloring ofthe skin and narrowing ofthebronchioles. Exposure
to HCl can lead to RADS, a chemicallyorirritant-induced type of asthma. Children may be more vulnerable to corrosive agents than adults because of the relatively smaller diameter oftheir airways. Children may also be more vulnerable to gas exposure because of increased minute ventilation per kilograms and failure to evacuate an

area promptly when exposed. HCl has
not been classified for carcinogenic effects.22

Mercury in the environment is transformed into a more toxic form, methylmercury (MeHg). Because
mercury is a persistent pollutant, MeHg accumulates in the food chain, especially the tissue offish. When people consume these fish, they

consume MeHg. In 2000, the National

21Agencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Medical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Chloride. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services. Available online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.govlmmgl mmg.asp?id=758&tid=147#bookmarkO2.

22U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1995. Integrated Risk Information System File ofHydrogen Chloride. Research and Development, National Center forEnvironmental Assessment, Washington, DC. This material is available electronically at http://www.epa.govlirislsubstl 0396.htm.

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Academy ofScience (NAS) Study was issued which provides a thorough review ofthe effects ofMeHg on human health (National Research Council (NRC), 2000).23 Many ofthe peerreviewed articles cited in this section

are publications originally cited in the MeHg Study. In addition, the EPA has conducted literature searches to obtain other related and more recent publications to complement the material summarized by the NRC in 2000.

In its review ofthe literature, the NAS found neurodevelopmental effects to be the most sensitive and best documented endpoints and appropriate for establishing an oral reference dose (RID) (NRC, 2000); in particular NAS supported the use ofresults from neurobehavioral or neuropsychological
tests. The NAS report notedthat studies in animals reported sensory effects as well as effects onbrain development and memory functions and support the conclusions based on epidemiology studies. The NAS noted that their recommended endpoints for an RID are associated with the ability ofchildren to learn and to succeed in school. They concluded the following: "The population at highest risk is the children ofwomen who consumed large
amounts offish and seafood during
pregnancy. The committee concludes that therisk to thatpopulation is likely
to be sufficient to resultin an increase in the number ofchildren who have to struggle to keep up in school."

The NAS summarized data on cardiovascular effects available up to 2000. Based on these and other studies, the NRC concluded that "Although the database is not as extensive for cardiovascular effects as itis for other endpoints (i.e. neurologic effects) the cardiovascular system appears tobe a target for MeHg toxicity inhumans and animals." The NRC also stated that "additional studies are needed to better characterize the effect ofmethylmercury
exposure on blood pressure and cardiovascular function atvarious stages oflife."

Additional cardiovascular studies have been published since 2000. The EPA did not to develop a quantitative dose-response assessment for cardiovascular effects associated with MeHg exposures, as there is no

consensus among scientists on the doseresponse functions for these effects. In addition, there is inconsistency among available studies as to the association between MeHg exposure and various cardiovascular system effects. The

23National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Toxicological Effects ofMethylmercury. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. pharmacokinetics of some ofthe
exposure measures (suchas toenail mercury levels) are not well understood. The studies have notyetreceived the review and scrutiny of the more wellestablished neurotoxicity data base.

The Mercury Study24 notedthat MeHg is not a potent mutagenbut is capable ofcausing chromosomal damage in a number ofexperimental systems. The NAS concluded that evidence thathuman exposure to MeHg caused genetic damage is inconclusive; they note that some earlier studies showing chromosomal damage in lymphocytes may not have controlled sufficiently for potential confounders. One study of adults living in the Tapaj6s River region in Brazil (Amorim
et al., 2000) reported a direct relationship between MeHg concentration in hair and DNA damage in lymphocytes; as well as effects on chromosomes.25Long-term MeHg exposures in this population were believed to occur through consumption offish, suggesting that genotoxic effects (largely chromosomal aberrations) may result from dietary, chronic MeHg exposures similar to and above those

seen in the Faroes and Seychelles populations.

Although exposure to some forms of mercury can result in a decrease in immune activity or an autoimmune response (ATSDR, 1999), evidence for immunotoxic effects ofMeHg islimited (NRC, 2000).26

Based on limited human and animal data, MeHg is classified as a "possible" human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1994) and in Integrated RiskInformation System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 2002).2728 The

24U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1997. MercuryStudyReportto Congress, EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234-3054. December. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.govlhgl report.htm.

25Amorim, M.IM., D. Mergler, M.O. Bahia, H. Dubeau, D. Miranda, J. Lebel, R.R. Burbano, andM. Lucotte. 2000. Cytogenetic damage related to low levels ofmethyl mercury contamination inthe Brazilian Amazon. An. Acad. Bras. Science. 72(4):
497-507.

26

Agency forToxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for Mercury. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA.

27U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
2002. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on Methylmercury. National Centerfor Environmental Assessment. Office ofResearch and Development. Available online at http://www.epa.govlirislsubstl 0073.htm.

2 8International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 1994. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation ofCarcinogenic Risks to Humans and their Supplements: Beryllium, Cadmium, Mercury, and Exposures in the Glass Manufacturing Industry. Vol. 58. Jalili, H.A., and A.H. Abbasi. 1961. Poisoning by ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide. existing evidence supporting the possibility ofcarcinogenic effects in humans from low-dose chronic exposures is tenuous. Multiple human epidemiological studies have found no significant association between mercury exposure and overall cancer incidence, although a few studies have shown an association between mercury exposure and specific types ofcancer incidence (e.g., acute leukemia and liver cancer) (NRC, 2000).

There is also some evidence of reproductive and renal toxicity in humans from MeHg exposure. However, overall, human data regarding reproductive, renal and hematological toxicity from MeHg are very limited and

are based on either studies ofthe two high-dose poisoning episodes in Iraq and Japan or animal data, rather than epidemiological studies ofchronic
exposures atthe levels ofinterest in this analysis.

VII. Statutoryand Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order12866:Regulatory Planning andReview andExecutive Order13563:ImprovingRegulationand RegulatoryReview

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action" because it raises novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 3821, January 21, 2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket forthis action. An RIA was prepared for the September 2010 final rule and canbe found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecasl regdata/RIAs/ portlandcementfinalria.pdf. http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/ portlandcementfinalria.pdf.

B. Paperwork ReductionAct
The information collection requirements in this final rule havebeen submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork ReductionAct,44 U.S.C. 3501, etseq.

The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA hasbeen assigned the EPA ICR number 1801.11 for the NESHAP; there are no additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements for the NSPS. The information requirements arebased on notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP

Br.J. Indust. Med. 18(Oct.):303-308 (as cited in NRC 2000). 

### 10029

### 10030 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject tonational emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (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.

We are finalizing new paperwork requirements for the Portland Cement Manufacturing source category in the form ofa requirement to incorporate work practices for periods ofstartup and shutdown and fugitive dust control

measures for clinker piles into their existing operations and maintenance plan.

This final rule also includes new paperwork requirements for recordkeeping ofmalfunctions, as described in 40 CFR 63.454(g) (conductedin support ofthe affirmative defense provisions, as described in 40 CFR 63.456).

When a malfunction occurs, sources must report the event according to the applicable reporting requirements of40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. An affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations ofemission limits that are caused by malfunctions is available to a

source ifit can demonstrate that certain criteria andrequirements are satisfied. The criteria ensure thatthe affirmative defense is available only where the
event that causes a violation ofthe emission limitmeets the narrow definition ofmalfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless operation) and where the source tooknecessary actions to minimize emissions. In addition, the source must meet certain notification and reporting requirements. For example, the source mustprepare a written root cause analysis and submit

awritten report to the Administrator documenting that ithas met the conditions and requirements for assertion ofthe affirmative defense.

The EPA is adding the paperwork and recordkeeping associated with the affirmative defense to civil penalties for malfunctions to the estimate ofburden in the ICR. To provide the public with

an estimate ofthe relative magnitude of the burden associated with an assertion ofthe affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to the ICRthat show what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the assertion ofthe affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's estimate forthe required notification, reports and records for any individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,258, and isbased on the time and effort required ofasource to review relevant data, interview plant employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction thathas caused a violation ofan emissions limit. The estimate also includes timeto produce and retain the record and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this illustrative estimate ofthisburden because these costs are only incurred ifthere hasbeen a violation and a source chooses to take advantage ofthe affirmative defense.

Given the variety ofcircumstances under which malfunctions could occur,

as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance practices,

we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency ofmalfunction-related

excess emissions events for a particular

source. It isimportant to note thatthe EPA has no basis currently for estimating the number ofmalfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities inrecognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with emissions standards during malfunctions. Ofthe number ofexcess emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number wouldbe expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition above), and only a subset of violations causedby malfunctions would result in the source choosing to
assert the affirmative defense. Thus,we expect the number ofinstances in which

source operators mightbe expected to avail themselves ofthe affirmative defense will be extremely small. Forthis
reason, we estimate nomore than two such occurrences per year for all sources subject to subpart LLL over the 3-year period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate

as better information becomes available.

We estimate 86 facilities willbe subject to all final standards. The remaining 14 facilities will only be subject tothe open clinker pile standards in this action. The annual monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping cost for this source (averaged over the first three years after the effective date of the standards) for these amendments to subpart LLL is estimated to be $352,814 per year for the industry. This includes 496 labor hours
per year at a total labor cost of$47,806 per year, and total non-labor capital and operation and maintenance costs of $305,008 per year. This estimate includes reporting and recordkeeping associated with therequirements for open clinker storage piles. The total burden to the federal government (averaged over the first three years after the effective date ofthe standard) as a result ofthese amendments is estimated
to be 263 hours per year at a total labor
cost of$11,885 peryear. Burden is defined at 5CFR 1320.3(b).

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is notrequired to respond to, a collection ofinformation unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.RegulatoryFlexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to prepare

aregulatory flexibility analysis ofany rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that therule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes ofassessing the impact ofthis rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1)A smallbusiness whose parent company has no more than 750 employees based on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (327310), as defined by the Small Business Administration size standards; (2)a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government ofa city, county, town, school district or special district with a population ofless 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.

We estimate that 3ofthe 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities and comprise 3plants. After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will nothave a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Of the three affected small entities, all are expected to incur an annual compliance
cost ofless than 1.0 percent of sales to comply with these amendments tothe 2010 final rule (reflectingpotential controls on piles, which are likely to have lower cost when compared to the 2010 rule requirements because these plants already have requirements for

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

control ofopen clinker storage piles in their title V permits).

Although this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless adopted amendments which should reduce the impact ofthis final rule on small entities. For example,

we are expanding the provision that allows periodic HCIperformance tests

as an alternative to HCICEMS for

sources equipped with wet scrubbers to also apply to those sources thatuse dry scrubbers. This final rule also adds an option for sources using wet or dry scrubbers for HCI control to use SO2 as

a monitored parameter. Ifthese sources already have a CEMS for SO 2,then this will provide operational flexibility.

D. UnfundedMandatesReformAct

This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of$100 million or more for State, local and tribal governments, inthe aggregate,

or the private sector in any one year.As discussed earlier in this preamble, there is an actual savings to the industry of $52 million peryear. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 ofthe UMRA. This final action is also not subject to the requirements ofsection 203 ofthe UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of$100 million or more in any one year

or any disproportionate impacts on them.

E.Executive Order13132:Federalism

This final action does not have federalism implications. Itwill not have substantial direct effects on the states,

on the relationship between the national government and the states or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F.Executive Order13175:Consultation andCoordinationWithIndian Tribal Governments

This action may have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The EPA is aware ofone tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to subpart LLL and that willbe subject to this final rule. The provisions ofthis final rule are not expected toimpose new substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments since the same control technologies that are necessary under the current NESHAP will be needed to meet the final emissions limits. The EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on Tribal owned facilities. For example, we are expanding the provision that allows periodic HCl performance tests as an alternative to HCI CEMS for sources equipped with
wet scrubbers to also apply to those

sources thatuse dry sorbent injection (i.e., dry scrubbing systems). This final rule adds an option for sources using
wet or dry scrubbers for HCI control to

use SO2 as a monitored parameter. If these sources already have a CEMS for SO 2,then this will provide operational flexibility.

G. Executive Order13045:Protectionof ChildrenFromEnvironmentalHealth Risks andSafetyRisks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5- 501 ofthe Executive Order has the potential toinfluence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it isbased solely

on technology performance.

H. Executive Order13211:Actions Concerning RegulationsThat Significantly Affect EnergySupply, Distribution,or Use

This final action is not a "significant
energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May22, 2001)), because it is not likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use ofenergy. The amendments do not require the use of additional controls as compared to the 2010 rule and may allow the industry toreduce its cost of compliance by increasing the industry's flexibility to institute different and less costly control strategies than under the 2010 rule.

L NationalTechnologyTransferand AdvancementAct
Section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 ("NTTAA"), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures andbusiness practices) that

are developed or adoptedby VCS bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable VCS.

This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA is not considering the use of anyvoluntary consensus standards.

J.Executive Order12898:Federal Actions ToAddressEnvironmental Justicein MinorityPopulations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,to make environmental justice part oftheir mission by identifying and addressing,

as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects oftheirprograms, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

An analysis ofdemographic data was prepared for the 2010 final rule and can be found in the docket for that rulemaking (See docket item EPA-HQOAR-2002-0051-3415). The impacts of the 2010 rule, which assumed full compliance, are expected to be unchanged as a result ofthis action. Therefore, beginning from the date of full compliance, the EPA has determined that this final rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the level ofenvironmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects

on any population, including any minority or low-income populations. In addition, the fullbenefits ofthis final rule will not result until 2015 due tothe final amended compliance date but the demographic analysis showed that the average ofpopulations in close proximity to the sources, andthus most likely to be affected by the sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
K. Congressional ReviewAct
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, etseq., 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 rulemust submita rule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe 

### 1003110032 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. The EPA will submita report containing this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication oftherule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after itispublished in the Federal Register. This action isnot a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule willbe effective

onFebruary 12, 2013.

List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 20, 2012. Lisa P.Jackson,
Administrator.

For the reasons stated inthe preamble, title 40, chapter I, ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60-[AMENDED]

m 1. The authority citation for part60 continues to read as follows:

Authority:23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401- 7671q.
Subpart F-[AMENDED]

* 2.Section 60.61 is amendedbyadding paragraphs (e) and (f)to read as follows:
§60.61 Definitions.

* * * * *

(e)Excessemissionsmeans, with respect to this subpart, results ofany required measurements outside the applicable range (e.g., emissions limitations, parametric operating limits) that ispermitted by this subpart. The values ofmeasurements willbe inthe

same units and averaging time as the values specified in this subpart for the limitations. (f)Operatingdaymeans a 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates at any time. Forcalculating rolling 30-day
average emissions, an operating day does not include the hours ofoperation during startup or shutdown.

* * * * *
* 3.Section 60.62 is amendedby: * a.Removing andreserving paragraph (a)(1)(i), revising paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); * b. Removing andreserving paragraph (a)(2);

mc.Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (ii); * d.Removing paragraph (b)(2);

me. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3); * f.Revising newlydesignated paragraph (b)(3); and * g. Revising paragraph (d).

The revisions read as follows:
§60.62 Standards.
(a) * * * 

### (1) * * * (ii)0.02 pound per ton ofclinker if construction or reconstruction ofthe kiln commenced after June 16, 2008. (iii)Kilns that haveundergone a modification may not discharge into the atmosphere any gases which contain PM in excess of0.07 pound per ton of clinker.

(b) * * * (1) * * * (i) 0.02 pound per ton ofclinker if construction or reconstruction ofthe clinker cooler commences after June 16, 2008.

(ii)0.07 pound per ton ofclinker if the clinker cooler has undergone a modification.

(3)Ifthe kiln has a separated alkali bypass stack and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack, you must combine the PM emissions fromthe bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack with the PM emissions fromthe main kiln exhaust to determine total PM emissions.

(d)Ifyou have an affected source subject tothis subpart with a different emissions limitor requirement for the

same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 ofthis chapter, you must comply withthe most stringent emissions limitor requirement and are not subject to the less stringent requirement.
* 4. Section 60.63 is amended by: * a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i)and (ii); * b. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(iii);

mc. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)and (3); * d.Removing paragraph (b)(4);

me. Revising paragraphs (c) through (f); * f.Revising paragraph (g)introductory text; * g. Revising paragraph (g)(2); * h.Revising paragraph (h)introductory text; * i.Revising paragraphs (h)(1) and (6); 

### * j.Revising paragraph (h)(7) introductory text; * k.Revising paragraph (h)(8) introductory text; * 1.Revising paragraph (h)(9);

mm.Revisingparagraph (i) introductory text; and E n.Revising paragraph (i)(1) introductory text and (i)(1)(i).

The revisions and addition read as follows:
§60.63 Monitoring ofoperations.

* * * * *

(b) *** 

### (1)* * * (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount ofclinker produced in tons ofmass per hour.The system of measuring hourly clinker production
must be maintained within±5 percent accuracy or (ii)Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount offeed to the kiln in tons ofmass per hour.The system of measuring feed mustbe maintained within ±5 percent accuracy. Calculate
your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker ratio based onreconciled clinker production
rates determined for accounting
purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio shouldbe updated monthly. Note that ifthis ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do not have
to retroactively change clinker production rates previously estimated. (iii)For each kiln operating hour for which you do nothave data on clinker production or the amount offeed to the kiln, use the value fromthe mostrecent previous hour for which valid data are available. (2)Determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production
rates or feed rates before initial use (for

new sources) orby the effective compliance date ofthis rule (for existing sources). During each quarter ofsource operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe ongoing accuracy ofthe system ofmeasuring hourly clinker production rates or feed
rates. (3)Ifyou measure clinker production directly, record the daily clinker production rates; ifyou measure the kiln feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the daily kiln feed and clinker production rates. (c) PMEmissionsMonitoring Requirements.(1)For each kiln or clinker cooler subject to a PM emissions limit in §60.62, you must demonstrate compliance through an initial performance test.You will conductyour performance test using Method 5or Method 5I at appendix A-3 to part 60 ofthis chapter. You must also monitor continuous performance through use of

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

aPM continuous parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS).

(2)Foryour PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating limit. IfyourPM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels
to be below 75 percent ofyour emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test,the milliamp equivalent ofzero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to establish your operating limitequivalent to 75 percent ofthe standard. Ifyour PM compliance
test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of
your emission limityou will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit to establish your operating limit. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance test annually andreassess and adjust the site-specific operating limitin accordance with the results ofthe performance test. (i) Your PM CPMS must provide a 4- 20 milliamp output and the establishment ofitsrelationship to manual reference method measurements must be determined in units of milliamps. (ii)Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable ofreading PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two timesyour allowable emission limit. IfyourPM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, theprimary range ofthe instrument must be capable ofreading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to two timesyour allowable emission limit. (iii)During the initial performance
test orany such subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test

runs (e.g., average allyour PM CPMS output values for three corresponding 2- hour Method 5I test runs). (3)Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)through (c)(5) ofthis section. Ifyour PM performance test demonstrates yourPM emission levels to be below 75 percent ofyour emission limityou will use the
average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test,the milliamp equivalent ofzero output from
your PM CPMS, and the average PM result ofyour compliance test to establish your operating limit. Ifyour PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels tobe at or above 75 percent ofyour emission limityou will

use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You
must verify an existing or establish a

new operating limit after each repeated performance test.You must repeat the performance test at least annually and

reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limitin accordance with the results oftheperformance test. (4) Ifthe average ofyour three Method 5or 5I compliance testruns are below 75 percent ofyour PM emission limit, you must calculate an operating limitby establishing a relationship ofPM CPMS signal to PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS values corresponding to the three compliance test runs, and the average PM concentration from the Method 5 or 5I compliance test with the procedures in (c)(4)(i)(A) through (D) ofthis section. (i) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one ofthe following procedures. (A) Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a test bench. (B) Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean ambient air.

(C) The zero point can also canbe obtained byperforming manual reference method measurements when the flue gas isfree ofPM emissions or contains verylow PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the zero intercept. (D) Ifnone ofthe steps in paragraphs (c)(4)(i)(A) through (C) ofthis section

are possible, you must use azero output value provided by the manufacturer. (ii)Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and the average ofyour corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using equation 1.

' 

## n 1 i 

## ,Y=

7:' (Eq. 1)

Where:
X1 = The PM CPMS data points forthe three

runs constituting the performance test, Y1 = The PM concentration value forthe three runs constituting the performance test, and n =The number ofdata points.

(iii)Withyour PM CPMS instrument

zero expressed in milliamps,your three

run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run average PM concentration fromyour three PM performance test runs, determine a relationship oflb/ton-clinker per milliamp with equation 2.



# R= Y (x

- Z)

Where:
R = The relative lb/ton clinkerper milliamp for your PM CPMS. Y1 = The three run average PM lb/ton clinker. X1 = The three run average milliamp output from you PMCPMS. z =the milliamp equivalent ofyour value from Equation 2 above in instrument zero determined from (c)(4)(i) Equation 3, below. This sets your ofthis section. operating limit at the PM CPMS output
(iv)Determine your source specific value corresponding to 75 percent of 30-day rolling average operating limit your emission limit. using the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp 

### (Eq. 2) 10033

### 10034 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations



### 0 1

### =z+(0.75 (L)) / R (Eq. 3)

Where:

01 =The operating limit foryour PM CPMS

on a 30-day rolling average, in milliamps. L =Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker. z =Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i). R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PMCPMS, fromEquation 2. (5) Ifthe average ofyour three PM compliance test runs is at or above 75 percent ofyour PM emission limit you must determine your operating limitby averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding toyour three PM performance test runs thatdemonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 4.



## 010 

# ;--

# z.x1
(Eq. 4)

Where:
X1 = The PM CPMS data points forallruns i.

n =The number ofdatapoints.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps. (6) To determine continuous compliance, you must record the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating, anduse all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out-of-control. You
must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units ofthe operating limit (milliamps)on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end ofeach new kiln operating day. Use Equation 5to determine the 30 kiln operating day
average.



## EHpv,

30kiln operatingdayaverage= ' n n

Where: Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i.

n =The number ofvalid hourlyparameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days.

(7) Use EPA Method 5 or Method 5I ofappendix A topart 60 ofthis chapter
to determine PM emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test run to collect a minimum sample volume of2dscm for determining compliance with a new

source limit and 1dscm for determining compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the average ofthe results from three consecutive runs to determine compliance. You need not determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers ("backhalf") ofthe Method 5or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards ofthis subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination ofthe "back half" for other purposes. (8) ForPM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission ofthe test report must also include the make and model ofthe PM CPMS instrument, serial number ofthe instrument, analytical principle ofthe instrument (e.g.beta attenuation), span ofthe instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent tothe instrument zero output, technique by which this zerovalue was determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance
test run. (d)You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS continuously monitoring and recording the concentration byvolume of NOx emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject tothe NOx emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3). Ifthe kiln has an alkali bypass, NOx emissions from the alkali bypass do not need to be monitored, and NOx emission monitoring ofthe kiln exhaust maybe done upstream ofany commingled alkali bypass gases. (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a CEMS for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration byvolume of S02 emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln subject tothe S02 emissions limit in §60.62(a)(4). Ifyou are complying with the alternative 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction emissions limit,
you must also continuously monitor and record the concentration byvolume of SO2present at the wet scrubber inlet.

(f)The NOx and SO2 CEMS required under paragraphs (d)and (e) ofthis section must be installed, operated and maintained according to Performance Specification 2ofappendix B ofthis part and the requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5)ofthis section.

(1)The span value ofeach NOx GEMS monitor mustbe set at 125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOx emission concentration that translates tothe applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity. (2)You must conduct performance evaluations ofeach NOx CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2ofappendix B tothis part. You must use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E ofappendix A-4 to this part for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses," (incorporated by referencesee §60.17) is an acceptable alternative
to Method 7or 7C of appendix A-4 to this part. (3)The span value for the SO2 CEMS monitor isthe SO2 emission concentration that corresponds to 125 percent ofthe applicable emissions limit at full clinker production capacity 

### (Eq. 5)

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

andthe expected maximum fuel sulfur
content.

(4) You must conduct performance evaluations ofeach SO 2 CEMS monitor according to the requirements in §60.13(c) and Performance Specification 2ofappendix B tothis part. You must use Methods 6, 6A, or 6C ofappendix A-4 to thispart for conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, "Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses," (incorporated by referencesee §60.17) is an acceptable alternative
to Method 6 or 6A of appendix A-4 to this part. (5)You must comply with the quality

assurance requirements in Procedure 1 ofappendix F to thispart for each NOx and SO 2 CEMS, including quarterly accuracy determinations for monitors, and daily calibration drift tests. (g)For each CPMS or CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) ofthis section:

(2)You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality

assurance or control activities in calculations used toreport emissions or operating levels. Amonitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent,
not reasonably preventable failure ofthe monitoring system toprovide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poormaintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must use all the data collected during all other periods in reporting emissions or operating levels.

(h)You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flowrate to allow determination ofthe pollutant mass emissions rate tothe atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits in §60.62(a)(1)(ii) and (iii)and (b)(1)(i) and (ii), the NOx emissions limit in §60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions limitin §60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (10), where appropriate, ofthis section. (1)The owner or operator mustinstall each sensor ofthe flowrate monitoring system in a location thatprovides representative measurement ofthe exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location ofthe NOx and/or SO2 CEMS, taking into account the manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is thatportion of the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates

an output proportional to that flow rate.

(6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure a minimum ofone cycle ofoperational flow for each successive 15-minute period. (7)The flow rate sensor must be able
to determine the daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 ofPerformance Specification 2 in appendix B to this partfor a discussion ofCD).

(8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test ofthe flow rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 ofPerformance Specification 6 of appendix B to thispart, with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii)ofthis section.

(9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system at least

once per year by repeating the relative
accuracy test specified in paragraph (h)(8)ofthis section.

(i)DevelopmentandSubmittal (Upon Request) of MonitoringPlans.To demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring (includingPM CPMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according tothe requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) ofthis section. This requirement also applies to you ifyou petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under §60.13(3)(i). Ifyou use a bag leak detector system (BLDS),you must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph §63.1350(m)(10) ofthis chapter.

(1)Foreach continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii)ofthis section. You must submitthis site-specific monitoring plan, ifrequested, at least 30 days before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS. (i) Installation ofthe CMS sampling probe orother interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the
measurement is representative of control ofthe exhaust emissions (e.g.,

on ordownstream ofthe last control device);



### u 5.Section 60.64 isrevised to read as follows: §60.64 Test methods and procedures. (a)In conducting the performance
tests and relative accuracy tests required in §60.8, you must use reference methods andprocedures and the test methods in appendix A ofthis part or other methods and procedures as specified in this section, except as provided in §60.8(b). (b)(1)Youmust demonstrate compliance with the PM standards in §60.62 using EPA method 5 ormethod 51.(2)Use Method 9 andthe procedures in §60.11 to determine opacity. (3)Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali bypass and clinker cooler) that are subject to the 10 percent opacity limitmust follow the appropriate monitoring procedures in §63.1350(f), (m)(1)through (4), (10) and (11), (o), and (p) ofthis chapter.

(c) Calculate and record the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emission rate daily ofNOx and S02 according to the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) ofthis section.

(1)Calculate the rolling 30 kiln operating day average emissions according to equation 6:

n-,



## E0=k 

# i= (Eq. 6) 10035

### 10036 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Where:

E3OD = 30 kiln operating day average emission
rate ofNOx or S02, lb/ton ofclinker. Ci =Concentration ofNOx or S02 for hour i, ppm. Q =Volumetric flowrate ofeffluent gas for hour i, where Ciand 

### Q are on the same basis (eitherwet

or dry), scf/hr. P = 30 days ofclinker production during the

same time period as the NOx or S02 emissions measured, tons. k = Conversion factor, 1.194 X10 7for NOx and 1.660 X10 7for S02, lb/scf/ ppm.

n =Number ofkiln operating hours over 30 kiln operating days. (2)Foreach kiln operating hour for which you do nothave atleast one valid 15-minute CEMS data value, use the
average emissions rate (lb/hr)from the
most recent previous hour for which valid data are available. (d)(1) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance test (see §60.8) as required by this subpart you must submit the results ofthe performance tests conducted to demonstrate compliance under this subpart to the EPA's WebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://www.epa.govl cdx). Performance test data mustbe submitted in the file format generated through use ofthe EPA's Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.htm]). Only data collected using test methods

onthe ERT Web site are subject to this requirement for submitting reports electronically to WebFIRE. Owners or operators who claim that some ofthe information being submitted for performance tests is confidential business information (CBI) must submit

a complete ERT file including information claimed to be CBIon a compact disk,flash drive or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in thisparagraph. At the discretion ofthe delegated authority, you must also submit these reports, including the CBI, to the delegated authority in the format specified by the delegated authority. For any performance test conducted usingtest methods that are notlisted on the ERT Web site, you must submitthe results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. (2)Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS performance evaluation test as defined in §63.2, you must submitrelative accuracy test audit (RATA) data to the EPA's CDX byusing CEDRI in accordance withparagraph (d)(1) ofthis section. Only RATA pollutants that can be documented with the ERT (as listed on the ERT Web site)

are subject tothis requirement. For any performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed

on the ERT Web site, you must submit the results ofthe performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. (3)For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission ofthe test report must also include the make and model ofthe PM CPMS instrument, serial number ofthe instrument, analytical principle ofthe instrument (e.g.beta attenuation), span ofthe instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent tothe instrument zero output, technique by which this zerovalue was determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance
test run. (4) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) ofthis section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in §63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such

as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal ofreports subject toparagraph (d)(1) and (2)of this section in paper format. * 6. Section 60.65 isrevised toread as follows:
§60.65 Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

(a)Each owner or operator required to install a CPMS or CEMS under sections §60.63(c) through (e) shall submit reports ofexcess emissions. The content ofthese reports must comply with the requirements in §60.7(c). Notwithstanding the provisions of §60.7(c), such reports shall be submitted semiannually.

(b)Each owner or operator offacilities subject tothe provisions of§ 60.63(c) through (e) shall submit semiannual reports ofthe malfunction information required tobe recorded by §60.7(b). These reports shall include the frequency, duration, and cause of any incident resulting in deenergization of any device controlling kiln emissions or in the venting ofemissions directly to the atmosphere. (c) The requirements ofthis section remain in force until and unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under section 111(c) ofthe Clean Air Act,42 U.S.C. 7411, approves reporting requirements or an alternative means ofcompliance surveillance adopted by such States. In that event, affected sources within the State will be relieved ofthe obligation
to comply with this section, provided that they comply with the requirements established by the State. * 7.Section 60.66 is amendedby revising paragraph (b)introductory text to read as follows: §60.66 Delegation of authority.

(b)In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a State, local,

or tribal agency, the approval authorities contained in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) ofthis section are retained by the Administrator ofthe U.S EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency.

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

* 8. The authority citation for part63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, etseq. Subpart LLL-[Amended]

. 9. Section 63.1340 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(6)through (9), and (c) to read as follows:
§63.1340 What parts ofmy plant does this subpart cover?

(b)

... (1)Each kiln including alkali bypasses and inline coal mills, except for kilns thatburn hazardous waste and

are subject to and regulated under subpart EEE ofthis part;

(6) Each raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin at any portland cement plant thatis amajor
source;

(7)Each conveying system transfer point including those associated with coal preparation used to convey coal from the millto the kiln at any portland
cement plant thatis a major source; (8) Each bagging and bulk loading and unloading system at any portland
cement plant thatis a major source; and

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(9) Each open clinker storage pile at any portland cement plant.

(c) Onsite sources that are subject to standards for nonmetallic mineral processing plants in subpart 000, part 60 ofthis chapter are not subject tothis subpart. Crushers are not covered by this subpart regardless oftheir location.

* 10. Section 63.1341 is amended by:


### ma.Removing definitions of"Enclosed storage pile," and "Inactive clinker pile"; * b. Adding adefinition for "In-line coal mill," "Open clinker storage pile," "Startup," and "Shutdown" in alphabetical order; and



### mc.Revising definitions for "Kiln," "New source," "Operating day," "Raw material dryer," and "Total organic HAP,".

The additions and revisions read as follows:
§63.1341 Definitions.

In-linecoalmillmeans those coal mills using kiln exhaust gases in their process. Coal mills with a heat source other than the kiln or coal mills using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler are not an in-line coal mill.

Kiln means a device, including any associated preheater or precalciner devices, inline raw mills, inline coal mills or alkali bypasses thatproduces clinker byheating limestone and other materials for subsequent production of portland cement. Because the inline raw mill and inline coal mill are considered

an integral part ofthe kiln,for purposes ofdetermining the appropriate emissions limit, the term kiln also applies to the exhaust ofthe inline raw mill and the inline coal mill.

New sourcemeans any source that commenced construction or reconstruction after May 6, 2009, for
purposes ofdetermining the applicability ofthe kiln, clinker cooler andraw material dryer emissions limits for mercury, PM, THC, and HCl.

Openclinkerstorage pilemeans a clinker storage pile on the ground for

more than three days thatis not completely enclosed in abuilding or structure.

Operating daymeans any 24-hour period beginning at 12:00 midnight during which the kiln operates for any time. Forcalculating the rolling 30-day average emissions, kiln operating days do not include the hours ofoperation during startup or shutdown.

Raw materialdryermeans an impact dryer, drum dryer, paddle-equipped rapid dryer, air separator, or other equipment used to reduce the moisture
content offeed or other materials.

Shutdownmeans the cessation ofkiln operation. Shutdown begins when feed
to the kiln is halted and ends when continuous kiln rotation ceases.

Startupmeans the time from when a shutdown kiln first begins firing fuel until itbegins producing clinker. Startup begins when a shutdown kiln
turns on the induced draft fan and begins firing fuel in the main burner. Startup ends when feed isbeing continuously introduced into the kiln for at least 120 minutes or when the feed rate exceeds 60 percent ofthe kiln design limitation rate, whichever occurs first.

TotalorganicHAPmeans, for the purposes ofthis subpart, the sum ofthe concentrations ofcompounds of formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, styrene, m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene, acetaldehyde, and naphthalene as measured by EPA Test Method 320 or Method 18 ofappendix Ato this part or ASTM D6348-03' or a combination of these methods, as appropriate. If
measurement results for any pollutant

are reported asbelow the method detection level (e.g., laboratory analytical results for one ormore sample components are below the

' Whenusing ASTMD6348-03, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The test plan preparation and implementation
in the Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, Sections Al through A8 aremandatory; (2) For ASTM D6348- 03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent R mustbe determined for eachtarget analyte (see Equation A5.5); (3) For the ASTM D6348-03 test data to be acceptable for a target analyte percent Rmust be 70 percent> R < 130 percent; and (4) The percent R valuefor each compound mustbe reported in the test report and all field measurements corrected with the calculated percent R value for that compound using the following equation: Reported Result = The measured concentration in the stack divided by the calculated percent R value and then the wholeterm multiplied by 100. method defined analytical detection level), you must use the method detection level as the measured emissions level for that pollutant in calculating the total organic HAP value. The measured result for a multiple component analysis (e.g., analytical values for multiple Method 18 fractions)
may include a combination ofmethod detection level data and analytical data reported above the method detection level. The owner or operator ofan affected source may request the use of othertest methods to make this determination under paragraphs 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f)ofthis part.

* 11. Section 63.1343 isrevised toread

as follows:
§63.1343 What standards applyto my kilns,clinkercoolers, raw material dryers, and open clinkerstorage piles?
(a) General.The provisions in this section apply to each kiln and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln,clinker cooler, raw material dryer, and open clinker storage pile. All D/F, HCl, and total hydrocarbon (THC) emissions limit

are on a dry basis. The D/F, HCI, and THC limits for kilns are corrected to 7 percent oxygen. All THC emissions limits are measured as propane. Standards for mercury and THC are based ona rolling 30-day average. If using a CEMS to determine compliance with the HCl standard, this standard is based ona rolling 30-day average. You
must ensure appropriate corrections for moisture are made when measuring flow rates used to calculate mercury emissions. The 30-day period means 30 consecutive kiln operating days excluding periods of startup and shutdown. All emissions limits for kilns, clinker coolers, and raw material dryers currently in effect that are superseded bythe limits below continue
to apply until the compliance date of the limits below, or until the source certifies compliance with the limits below, whichever is earlier. (b)Kilns, clinkercoolers,rawmaterial dryers,rawmills,and finishmills. (1) The emissions limits for these sources

are shown in Table 1below. PM limits for existing kilns also apply to kilnsthat have undergone a modification as defined in subpart A ofpart 60 oftitle 40. 

### 10037

### 10038 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1-EMISSIONS LIMITS FOR KILNS, CLINKER COOLERS, RAW MATERIAL DRYERS, RAW AND FINISH MILLS

If your source is a And the operating

. . Your emissions limits And the units of the The oxygen And if is located at a. : eisoslmtae correction (an): mode is: are: emissions limit are: factor is:

1

.............. Existing kiln

............. Normal operation

..... Major or area source PM 10.07

................. lb/ton clinker

............ NA. D/F2 0.2

................... ng/dscm (TEQ)

........ 7 percent. Mercury 55

............... Ib/MM tons clinker

... NA. THC 3424

................ ppmvd

...................... 7 percent. 2

.............. Existing kiln

............. Normal operation

..... Major source

........ HCI 3

....................... ppmvd

...................... 7 percent. 3

.............. Existing kiln

............. Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices

......... NA

............................ NA. down. (63.1346(f)) 4

.............. New kiln

................... Normal operation

..... Major or area source PM 0.02

................... lb/ton clinker

............ NA. D/F2 0.2

................... ng/dscm (TEQ)

........ 7 percent. Mercury 21

.............. Ib/MM tons clinker

... NA THC 34 24

................ ppmvd

...................... 7 percent. 5

.............. New kiln

................... Normal operation

..... Major source

............ HCl 3.............. ppmvd

...................... 7 percent. 6

.............. New kiln

................... Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices

......... NA

............................ NA. down. (63.1346(f)) 7

.............. Existing clinker cool- Normal operation

..... Major or area source PM 0.07

................... lb/ton clinker

............ NA.

er. 8

.............. Existing clinker cool- Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices

......... NA

............................ NA.

er. down. (63.1348(b)(9)) 9

.............. New clinker cooler

... Normal operation

..... Major or area source PM 0.02

................... lb/ton clinker

............ NA. 10

............ New clinker cooler

... Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices

......... NA

............................ NA. down. (63.1348(b)(9)) 11

............ Existing or new raw Normal operation

..... Major or area source THC 34 24

................ ppmvd

...................... NA. material dryer. 12

............ Existing or new raw Startup and shut- Major or area source Work practices

......... NA

............................ NA. material dryer. down. (63.1348(b)(9)) 13

............ Existing or new raw All operating modes Major source

............ Opacity 10

............... percent

..................... NA.

orfinish mill.

1The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 51and consistof three 1 -hr tests.

2 If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test is 400 'F or less this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ).

3 Measured as propane. 4Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

(2)When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln,the combined PM emissions from the kiln andthe alkali bypass stack and/or the inline coal mill stack are subject to the PM emissions limit. Existing kilns that combine the clinker cooler exhaust and/

or coal mill exhaust with the kiln exhaust and send the combined exhaust to the PM control device as a single
stream may meet an alternative PM emissions limit. This limitis calculated using Equation 1ofthis section:



### PM alt = (0.0060 x 1.65) (Qk + Qc + Qab + Qc m 

### )/(7000) (Eq. 1)

Where:
PMalt = Alternative PM emissionlimit for commingled sources. 0.006 =The PM exhaust concentration (gr/ dscf) equivalent to 0.070 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined. 1.65 = The conversion factor ofton feed per ton clinker. Q1 = The exhaust flow ofthe kiln (dscf/ton feed). Q. = The exhaust flowof the clinkercooler (dscf/tonfeed).

Qab = The exhaust flow ofthe alkali bypass (dscf/tonfeed). Qm = The exhaust flow ofthe coal mill (dscf/
ton feed). 7000 =The conversion factor for grains (gr)
per lb.

For new kilns that combine kiln exhaust and clinker cooler gas the limit is calculated using the Equation 2 of this section:



### PMalt = 

### (0.0020 x 1.65) (Qk + 

### Q, + Qab + 

### Qcm)/(7000)

Where:
PMalt = Alternative PM emissionlimit for commingled sources. 0.002 =The PM exhaust concentration (gr/ dscf) equivalent to 0.020 lb per ton clinker where clinker cooler and kiln exhaust gas are not combined. 1.65 = The conversion factor of ton feedper ton clinker. Qk = The exhaust flow ofthe kiln (dscf/ton feed). Q. =The exhaust flowof the clinkercooler (dscf/tonfeed).

Qab = The exhaust flow ofthe alkali bypass (dscf/tonfeed). Qm =The exhaust flow ofthe coal mill (dscf/
ton feed). 7000 = The conversion factor for grper lb. (c) Openclinkerstorage pile.The

owner or operator ofan open clinker storage pile must prepare, and operate in accordance with, the fugitive dust emissions control measures, described in their operation and maintenance plan (see §63.1347 ofthis subpart), thatis appropriate for the site conditions as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

### (Eq. 2)

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(3)ofthis section. The operation and maintenance plan must also describe the measures that will be used to minimize fugitive dust emissions from piles ofclinker, such as accidental spillage, that are not part ofopen clinker storage piles.

(1)The operation and maintenance plan must identify and describe the location ofeach current orfuture open clinker storage pile andthe fugitive dust emissions control measures the owner

oroperator will use to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each open clinker storage pile.

(2)Foropen clinker storage piles, the operations and maintenance plan must specifythat one or more ofthe following control measures will be used to minimize to the greatest extent practicable fugitive dust from open clinker storage piles: Locating the

source inside a partial enclosure, installing and operating a water spray or fogging system, applying appropriate chemical dust suppression agents, use ofa windbarrier, compaction, use of tarpaulin or other equally effective

cover oruse ofa vegetative cover. You
must select, for inclusion in the operations and maintenance plan, the fugitive dust control measure or

measures listed in this paragraph that

are most appropriate for site conditions. The plan must also explain howthe

measure or measures selected are applicable and appropriate for site conditions. In addition, the planmust be revised as needed to reflect any changing conditions at the source.

(3)Temporary piles ofclinker that result from accidental spillage or clinker storage cleaning operations must be cleaned up within 3days.

(d)Emission limits in effect prior to September 9, 2010. Any source defined

as an existing source in § 63.1351, and that was subject to a PM, mercury, THC, D/F, or opacity emissions limitprior to September 9, 2010, must continue to meet the limits shown in Table 2to this section until September 9, 2015. * 12. Section 63.1344 isrevised toread

as follows: 

### §63.1344 Affirmative Defense forViolation of Emission Standards During Malfunction.

In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in §63.1343(b) and (c) and §63.1345 andyou may assert an affirmative defense to a claim for civil penalties for violations ofsuch standards thatare caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties may be assessed ifyou fail tomeet your burden of proving all ofthe requirements in the affirmative defense. The affirmative defense shall notbe available for claims for injunctive relief. (a)Assertionofaffirmativedefense. To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce such a standard,
you must timely meet the reporting requirements in paragraph (b) ofthis section, and must proveby a preponderance ofevidence that: (1)The violation: (i) Was causedby a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and (ii)Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper design

or better operation and maintenance practices; and (iii)Didnot stem from any activity or event that could havebeen foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and (iv)Was not part ofa recurring pattern indicative ofinadequate design, operation, or maintenance; and (2)Repairs were made as expeditiously aspossible when a violation occurred; and (3)The frequency, amount, and duration ofthe violation (including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and (4) Ifthe violation resulted from a bypass ofcontrol equipment or a process, then thebypass was unavoidable to prevent loss oflife, personal injury, or severe property damage; and (5)All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact ofthe violation on ambient air quality, the environment, and human health; and (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were keptin operation ifat all possible, consistent with safety and good airpollution control practices; and (7)All ofthe actions in response to the violation were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and

(8) At alltimes, the affected source

was operated in a manner consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose ofwhich is
to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes ofthe malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring methods and engineering judgment, the
amount ofany emissions that were the result ofthe malfunction. (b)Report.The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative defense shall submit a written report to the Administrator with all necessary supporting documentation, that ithas
met the requirements set forth in paragraph (a) ofthis section. This affirmative defense report shall be included in the first periodic compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise required after the initial occurrence ofthe violation of the relevant standard (whichmaybe the end of any applicable averaging period). If such compliance, deviation report or

excess emission report is due less than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the affirmative defense report maybe included in the second compliance, deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial

occurrence ofthe violation ofthe relevant standard. * 13. Section 63.1345 isrevised toread

as follows:
§63.1345 Emissions limitsforaffected
sources otherthan kilns;clinkercoolers;
new and reconstructed raw material dryers.

The owner oroperator ofeach new or existing raw material, clinker, or finished product storage bin; conveying system transfer point; bagging system; bulkloading or unloading system; raw and finish mills; and each existing raw material dryer, at a facility which is a major source subject to theprovisions of this subpart must not cause to be discharged any gases from these affected

sources which exhibit opacity in excess of 10 percent. * 14. Section 63.1346 is amended by: * a.Revising paragraph (a)introductory text; * b. Revisingparagraph (a)(1);


### mc.Revising paragraphs (c) through (f); and * d. Addingparagraph (g)

The revisions read as follows:
§63.1346 Operating limitsforkilns.

(a)The owner or operator ofa kiln subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the kiln such that the temperature ofthe gas at the inletto the kiln PM control device (PMCD) and alkali bypass PMCD, if applicable, does not exceed the applicable temperature limit specified in paragraph (b) ofthis section. The

owner or operator ofan in-line kiln/raw mill subject to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343 must operate the in-line kiln/raw mill, such that: (1)When theraw mill ofthe in-line kiln/raw mill is operating, the applicable temperature limit for the main in-line kiln/raw mill exhaust, specified in paragraph (b) ofthis section and established during the performance
test when theraw mill was operating, is
not exceeded, except during periods of startup and shutdown when the 

### 10039

### 10040 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

temperature limitmay be exceeded by

no more than 10 percent.

* * * * *

(c) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

### §63.1343 thatemploys sorbent injection

as an emission control technique forD/ F control,you must operate the sorbent injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)ofthis section. (1)The rolling three-hour average activated sorbent injection rate must be equal to or greater than the sorbent injection rate determined in accordance with 

### §63.1349(b)(3)(vi). (2)You must either: (i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas flowrate, as

arolling three-hour average, based on the manufacturer's specifications. These specifications mustbe documented in the test plan developed in accordance with 

### §63.7(c), or (ii)Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas pressure drop, as a rolling three-hour average, based onthe manufacturer's specifications. These specifications
must be documented in the testplan developed in accordance with 

### §63.7(c).

(d)Except as provided in paragraph (e) ofthis section, for an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

### §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission control technique you must specify and use the brand and type of sorbent used during the performance test until a subsequent performance test is conducted, unless the site-specific performance test plan contains documentation ofkey parameters that affect adsorption and the owner or operator establishes limits based onthose parameters, and the limits on these parameters are maintained. (e) For an affected source subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

### §63.1343 thatemploys carbon injection

as an emission control technique you may substitute, at any time, a different brand or type of sorbent provided that the replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the sorbent specified in the site-specific performance test plan and used inthe performance test.The owner or operator must maintain documentation thatthe substitute sorbent will provide the same

orbetter level ofcontrol as the original sorbent.

(f)No kiln may use as araw material

orfuel any fly ash where the mercury content ofthe fly ash has been increased through the use of activated carbon, or any other sorbent, unless the facility can demonstrate thatthe use ofthat fly ash will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over baseline emissions (i.e., emissions not usingthe fly ash). The facility has the burden ofproving there has been no emissions increase over baseline. Once the kiln is in compliance with a mercury emissions limit specified in 

### §63.1343, this paragraph no longer applies. (g)During periods ofstartup and shutdown you must meet the requirements listed in (g)(1) through (4) ofthis section. (1)During startup you must use any

one or combination ofthe following clean fuels: natural gas, synthetic natural gas, propane, distillate oil, synthesis gas (syngas), and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD)until the kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. (2)Combustion ofthe primary kiln fuel may commence once thekiln temperature reaches 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. (3)All air pollution control devices
must be turned on and operating prior
to combusting any fuel. (4) You must keep records as specified in 

### §63.1355 during periods of startup and shutdown.

H 15. Section 63.1347 is amendedby revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§63.1347 Operation and maintenance plan requirements.

(a) * * * (1)Procedures for proper operation and maintenance ofthe affected source and air pollution control devices in order to meet the emissions limits and operating limits, including fugitive dust control measures for open clinker piles, of

### §§ 63.1343 through 63.1348. Your operations and maintenance plan must address periods ofstartup and shutdown;

* * * * *
*16. Section 63.1348 is amendedby:

ma. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) and (2); * b. Adding two sentencestoparagraph (a)(3)(i);

mc. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(ii); * d.Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) and (iv);

me. Revising paragraphs (a)(4) through (8); * f.Revising paragraph (b); and * g. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(iv).

The revisions and additions read as follows:
§63.1348 Compliance requirements.

(a)InitialPerformanceTest Requirements.For an affected source subject tothis subpart, you must demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits byusing the test methods and procedures in 

### §§ 63.1349 and 63.7. Any
cement kiln thathas been subject to the requirements of subpart CCCC or subpart DDDD of40 CFR Part 60, and is now electing to cease burning nonhazardous solidwaste and become subject to this subpart, must meet allthe initial compliance testing requirements each time itbecomes subject to this subpart, even ifitwas previously subject to this subpart.

NOTE to paragraph (a): The first day ofthe 30 operating day performance test is the first day after the compliance date following completion ofthe field testing and data collection that demonstrates that the CPMS or CEMS has satisfiedthe relevant CPMS performance evaluation

orCEMS performance specification (e.g., PS 2, 12A, or 12B) acceptance criteria. The performance test period is complete at the end ofthe 30th consecutive operating day. See 

### §63.1341 for definition of operating day and 

### §63.1348(b)(1) for the CEMS operating requirements. The source has the option ofperforming the compliance
test earlier then the compliance date if desired.

(1)PMCompliance.Ifyou are subject
to limitations on PM emissions under 

### §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the PM emissions standards by using the testmethods and procedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(1). (2) OpacityCompliance.Ifyou are subject to the limitations on opacity under 

### §63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance with the opacity emissions standards by using the performance test methods andprocedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(2). Use the maximum 6- minute average opacity exhibited during the performance test period to determine whether the affected source is in compliance withthe standard. (3) * * * (i) * * * The owner or operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill must demonstrate compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the

raw mill is operating and while the raw mill is not operating. Determine the D/ F TEQ concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic average ofthe TEQ concentrations measured for the three runs to determine continuous compliance.

(ii)Ifyou are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

### § 63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the temperature operating limits specified in 

### §63.1346 by using the performance test methods and procedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(3)(ii) through (b)(3)(iv). Use the arithmetic average of the temperatures measured during the

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

three runs to determine the applicable temperature limit. (iii)Ifactivated carbon injection is used and you are subject to a D/F emissions limitation under 

### §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the activated carbon injection rate operating limits specified in 

### § 63.1346 by using theperformance testmethods andprocedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(3)(v).

(iv)Ifactivated carbon injection is used, you must also develop a carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow
rate or the carrier gas pressure drop) during the initial performance test and updated during any subsequent performance test conducted under 

### §63.1349(b)(3) thatmeets the requirements of

### § 63.1349(b)(3)(vi). Compliance is demonstrated ifthe system is maintained within +/- 5 percent accuracy during the performance test determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria submitted for review inyour monitoring plan required in section 63.1350(p).

(4)(i) THCCompliance.Ifyou are subject to limitations on THC emissions under 

### §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the THC emissions standards by usingthe performance test methods and procedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(4)(i). You
must use the average THC concentration obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days after the compliance date ofthis rule to determine initial compliance.

(ii)Total Organic HAPEmissions Tests. Ifyou elect to demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limitunder 

### §63.1343(b) in lieu ofthe THC emissions limit,you must demonstrate compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using theperformance testmethods andprocedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(7.

(iii)Ifyou are demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct the separate performance tests as specified in 

### §63.1349(b)(7) while the raw mill of the inline kiln/raw mill is operating and while the raw mill ofthe inline kiln/raw mill is not operating. (iv)The average total organic HAP concentration measured during the separate initial performance test specified by 

### §63.1349(b)(7) must be used to determine initial compliance. (v)The average THC concentration measured during the initial performance
test specified by 

### §63.1349(b)(4) must be used to determine the site-specific THC limit. Using the fraction oftime the inline kiln/raw mill is on and the fraction oftime that the inline kiln/raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average ofthe THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill offtesting using one ofthe two approaches in 

### §63.1349(b)(7)(vii) or (viii)depending on the level oforganic HAP measured during the compliance
test. (5)MercuryCompliance.Ifyou are subject to limitations onmercury emissions in 

### §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance with the
mercury standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(5). You must demonstrate compliance by operating a mercury CEMS ora sorbent trap based CEMS. Compliance withthe mercury emissions standard must be determined based on the first 30 operating days you operate a mercury CEMS or sorbent trap monitoring system after the compliance date ofthis rule. (i) In calculating a 30 operating day emissions value using an integrating sorbent trap CEMS, assign the average Hg emissions concentration determined for an integrating period (e.g., 7day sorbent trap monitoring system sample)
to each relevant hour ofthe kiln operating days spanned by each integrated sample. Calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions rate value using the assigned hourly Hg emissions concentrations and therespective flow and production ratevalues collected during the 30 kiln operating day performance test period. Depending on the duration ofeach integrated sampling period, you may not be able to calculate the 30 kiln operating day emissions value until several days afterthe end of the 30 kiln operating day performance
test period. (ii)For example, a sorbent trap monitoring system producing an integrated 7-day sample willprovide Hg concentration data for each hour ofthe first 28 kiln operating days (i.e., four values spanning 7days each) of a 30 operating day period. The Hg concentration values for the hours ofthe last 2days ofthe 30 operating day period will notbe available for calculating the emissions for the performance test period until atleast five days after the end ofthe subject period. (6) HCICompliance.Ifyou are subject
to limitations on HCI emissions under 

### §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the HCI standards by using the performance test methods and procedures in 

### §63.1349(b)(6).

(i) For an affected source thatis equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you may demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test as specified in 

### §63.1349(b)(6)(i). You must determine the HCI concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic average ofthe concentrations measured for the three runs to determine compliance. You must also establish appropriate site-specific operational parameter limits. (ii)For an affected source thatis not equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower ordry scrubber, you must demonstrate initial compliance by operating a CEMS as specified in 

### §63.1349(b)(6)(ii). You must use the average ofthe hourly HCIvalues obtained during the first 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date ofthis rule to determine initial compliance.

(7) CommingledExhaust Requirements.Ifthe coal mill exhaust is commingled with kiln exhaust in a single stack, you may demonstrate compliance with the kiln emission limits byeither: (i) Performing required emissions monitoring and testing on the commingled coal mill and kiln exhaust,

or(ii)Perform required emission monitoring and testing ofthe kiln exhaust prior to the reintroduction of the coal mill exhaust, and also testing the kiln exhaust diverted to the coal mill. All emissions must be added together for all emission points, and
must not exceed the limitper each pollutant as listed in $63.1343(b). (b) ContinuousMonitoring Requirements.You must demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating limits by using the performance test methods and procedures in 

### §§ 63.1350 and 63.8 for each affected source.

(1) GeneralRequirements. (i) You
must monitor and collect data according
to 

### §63.1350 and the site-specific monitoring plan required by 

### §63.1350(p).

(ii)Except for periods ofstartup and shutdown, monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality

assurance or quality control activities (including,as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), you must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all required intervals at all times the affected source is operating.

(iii)You may not use datarecorded during monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A monitoring system malfunction is any 

### 10041

### 10042 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure ofthe monitoring system to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poormaintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation ofthe control device and associated control system.

(iv)ClinkerProduction.Ifyou are subject to limitations on mercury emissions (lb/MM tons ofclinker) under §63.1343(b), you must determine the hourly production rate ofclinker according to the requirements of §63.1350(d).

(2)PMCompliance.Ifyou are subject
to limitations on PM emissions under §63.1343(b), you must use the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(b) and (d).

(3) OpacityCompliance.Ifyou are subject to the limitations on opacity under §63.1345, you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods andprocedures in §63.1350(f) based onthe maximum 6-minute
average opacity exhibited during the performance test period. You must initiate corrective actions within one hour ofdetecting visible emissions above the applicable limit. (i) COMS.Ifyou install a COMS in lieu ofconducting the daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a COMS such that it is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(f)(4)(i).

(ii)Bagleak determination system (BLDS).Ifyou install a BLDS on a raw mill or finish mill inlieu ofconducting the daily visible emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of § 63.1350(f)(4)(ii). (4) D/FCompliance.Ifyou are subject
to a D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS thatis installed, operated and maintained to record the temperature of specified gas streams in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(g). (5)(i) Activated CarbonInjection Compliance.Ifyou use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b),
you must demonstrate compliance using

aCMS thatis installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated carbon injection in accordance with the requirements §63.1350(h)(1). (ii)Ifyou use activated carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under §63.1343(b),
you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS thatis installed, operated and maintained torecord the activated carbon injection system gasparameter in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(h)(2).

(6) THCCompliance.(i) Ifyou are subject to limitations onTHC emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(i) and (j).

(ii)THC must be measured either upstream ofthe coal mill or in the coal mill stack. (7)MercuryCompliance.(i) Ifyou are subject to limitations onmercury emissions in §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(k). Ifyou use an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system to determine ongoing compliance, use the procedures described in §63.1348(a)(5)
to assign hourly mercury concentration values andto calculate rolling 30 operating day emissions rates. Since you assign the mercury concentration measured with the sorbent trap to each relevant hour respectively for each operating day ofthe integrated period, you may schedule the sorbent trap change periods to any time ofthe day (i.e., the sorbent trap replacement need
not be scheduled at 12:00 midnight nor must the sorbent trapreplacements

occur only at integral 24-hour intervals). (ii)Mercury must be measured either upstream ofthe coal mill or in the coal mill stack. (8) HCI Compliance.Ifyou are subject
to limitations on HCl emissions under §63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using theperformance test methods and procedures in §63.1349(b)(6).

(i) For an affected source thatis not equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you must demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(l)(1). (ii)For an affected source that is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or a dry sorbent injection system, you may demonstrate compliance using the monitoring methods and procedures in §63.1350(l)(2). (iii)HCl may be measured either upstream ofthe coal mill or in the coal mill stack. (iv)As an alternative to paragraph (b)(8)(ii) ofthis section, you may use an SO 2 CEMS to establish an SO2 operating level during your initial and repeatHCl performance tests and monitor the SO2 level using the procedures in §63.1350(1)(3).

(9) Startup and Shutdown Compliance. In order to demonstrate continuous compliance during startup and shutdown, all air pollution control devices must be operating.

(c) * * * (2) * * * (iv)The performance test mustbe completed within 360 hours after the planned operational change period begins.

* * * * *
* 17. Section 63.1349 is amended by: * a.Revising paragraph (a)introductory text; * b. Revisingparagraph (b)(1);

mc.Revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text; * d. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(v)and (vi);

me.Revising paragraphs (b)(4), (5), and (6); * f.Adding paragraph (b)(7) and (8); and * g.Revising paragraphs (c), (d)(1) introductory text, (d)(1)(ii), (d)(2), and (e).

The revisions and additions read as follows:
§63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

(a) You must document performance
test results in complete test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs (a)(1) through (10) ofthis section, as well as all other relevant information. As described in §63.7(c)(2)(i), you must make available
to the Administrator prior to testing, if requested, the site-specific testplan to be followed during performance testing. For purposes ofdetermining exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere from an alkali bypass stack or a coal mill stack,
you must either install, operate, calibrate and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate according to the requirements in paragraphs §63.1350(n)(1) through (10) ofthis subpart or use the maximum design exhaust gas flow rate. Forpurposes of determining the combined emissions from kilns equipped with an alkali bypass or that exhaust kiln gases to a coal mill that exhausts through a separate stack, instead ofinstalling a CEMS on the alkali bypass stack or coal mill stack,you may use the results of the initial and subsequent performance
test to demonstrate compliance with the relevant emissions limit.

(b)(1) PMemissionstests.The owner

oroperator ofa kiln subject to limitations onPM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting aperformance test using Method 5or Method 5I at appendix A3to part 60 ofthis chapter. You must

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

also monitor continuous performance through use ofa PM continuous parametric monitoring system (PM CPMS). (i) For your PM CPMS, you will establish a site-specific operating limit. IfyourPM performance test demonstrates your PM emission levels
to be below 75 percent ofyour emission limit you will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test,the milliamp equivalent ofzero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. Ifyour PM compliance
test demonstrates your PM emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of
your emission limityou will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance testto establish your operating limit. You will

use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit. You must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test. (A) Your PM CPMS must provide a4- 20 milliamp output and the establishment ofitsrelationship to manual reference method measurements must be determined in units of milliamps. (B) Your PM CPMS operating range must be capable ofreading PM concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable emission limit. IfyourPM CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, theprimary range ofthe instrument must be capable ofreading PM concentration from zero to a level equivalent to three times your allowable emission limit. (C) During the initial performance test

or any such subsequent performance
test that demonstrates compliance with the PM limit, record and average all milliamp output values from the PM CPMS for the periods corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average all your PM CPMS output values for three corresponding 2-hour Method 5I
test runs). (ii)Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) through (iv)ofthis section. IfyourPM performance test demonstrates yourPM emission levels to be below 75 percent ofyour emission limityou will use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test,the milliamp equivalent ofzero output from your PM CPMS, and the average PM result ofyour compliance test to establish your operating limit. Ifyour PM compliance test demonstrates your PM emission levels tobe at or above 75 percent ofyour emission limityou will

use the average PM CPMS value recorded during the PM compliance test to establish your operating limit. You
must verify an existing or establish a

new operating limit after each repeated performance test.You must repeat the performance test at least annually and

reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limitin accordance with the results oftheperformance test. (iii)Ifthe average ofyour three Method 5or 5I compliance test runs is below 75 percent ofyour PM emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of PM CPMS signal to PM concentration using the PM CPMS instrument zero, the average PM CPMS values corresponding to the three compliance
test runs, and the average PM concentration from the Method 5or 5I compliance test withthe procedures in (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (D) ofthis section.

(A) Determine your PM CPMS instrument zero output with one ofthe following procedures. (1)Zero point data for in-situ instruments should be obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a test bench. (2)Zero point data for extractive instruments should be obtained by removing the extractive probe from the stack and drawing in clean ambient air.

(3)The zero point may alsobe established by performing manual reference method measurements when the flue gas isfree ofPM emissions or contains verylow PM concentrations (e.g., when your process is not operating, but the fans are operating or your source is combusting only natural gas) and plotting these with the compliance data to find the zero intercept. (4) Ifnone ofthe steps inparagraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) through (3) ofthis section are possible, you must use azero output value provided by the manufacturer. (B) Determine your PM CPMS instrument average in milliamps, and the average ofyour corresponding three PM compliance test runs, using equation 3.



### x = ;LA )],

i=1 n



### i;-i (Eq. 3)

Where: X1 =The PM CPMS data points for the three

runs constituting the performance test. Y1 = The PM concentration value for the three runs constituting the performance
test. n =The number ofdata points. (C) Withyour instrument zero expressed in milliamps,your three run average PM CPMS milliamp value, and your three run PM compliance test average, determine a relationship oflb/ ton-clinker per milliamp withEquation 4.



### (Eq. 4) 

# R= 

# 4

(X 1 - Z)

Where: z =The milliamp equivalent ofyour R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp instrument zero determined from for your PM CPMS. (b)(1)(iii)(A).
Y1 = The threerun average lb/ton-clinker PM concentration. (D) Determine your source specific 30- X1 =The threerun average milliamp output day rolling average operating limit using from you PMCPMS. the lb/ton-clinker per milliamp value from Equation 4 in Equation 5,below. This sets your operating limit at the PM CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent ofyour emission limit. 

### 10043

### 10044 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations



### 0.75(L) R- (Eq. 5)

Where:

01 =The operating limit foryour PM CPMS

on a 30-day rolling average, in milliamps. L =Your source emission limit expressed in lb/ton clinker. z =Your instrument zero in milliamps, determined from (1)(i). R = The relative lb/ton-clinker per milliamp for your PMCPMS, fromEquation 4. (iv) Ifthe average ofyour three PM compliance test runs is at or above 75 percent ofyour PM emission limit you must determine your operating limitby averaging the PM CPMS milliamp output corresponding toyour three PM performance test runs thatdemonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 6.

n



## n (Eq. 6)

Where:
X1 =The PM CPMS data points for allruns i.

n =The number ofdatapoints.

Oh = Your site specific operating limit, in milliamps. (v)To determine continuous operating compliance, you mustrecord the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating, and use all the PM CPMS data for calculations when the source isnot out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units ofthe operating limit (milliamps)on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end ofeach new kiln operating day. Use Equation 7to determine the 30 kiln operating day
average.



## n

# Hpv

30kilnoperatingday = n

Where: Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour 1.

n =The number ofvalid hourlyparameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days. (vi)For each performance test, conduct at least three separate testruns under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating atthe highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test

run to collect a minimum sample volume of2dscm for determining compliance with a new source limit and 1dscm for determining compliance with an existing source limit.Calculate the average ofthe results from three consecutive runs, including applicable sources as required by (D)(viii), to determine compliance. You need not determine theparticulate matter collected in the impingers ("backhalf") ofthe Method 5or Method 5I particulate sampling train to demonstrate compliance with the PM standards ofthis subpart. This shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a determination ofthe "back half" for other purposes. (vii)For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission ofthe test report must also include the make and model ofthe PM CPMS instrument, serial number ofthe instrument, analytical principle ofthe instrument (e.g.beta attenuation), span ofthe instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by which this zerovalue was determined, andthe average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance
test run. (viii)When there is an alkali bypass and/or an inline coal mill with a separate stack associated with a kiln,the main exhaust and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill must be tested simultaneously and the combined emission rate ofPM fromthe kiln and alkali bypass and/or inline coal mill
must be computed for each runusing Equation 8 ofthis section.



# EC= EK+E+E P 

### (Eq. 8)

Where:
Ec = Combinedhourly emission rate of PM from the kilnand bypass stack and/or inline coal mill, lb/ton ofkiln clinker production.

EK = Hourly emissions ofPM emissions from the kiln, lb. EB =Hourly PMemissions from the alkali bypass stack,lb. Ec =Hourly PMemissions from the inline coal mill stack, lb. P =Hourly clinkerproduction, tons.

(ix) The owner or operator ofa kiln with an in-line raw mill and subject to limitations on PM emissions shall demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is under normal operating conditions and while the raw mill is not operating. 

### (Eq. 7)

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

(3)D/F EmissionsTests. Ifyou are subject to limitations on D/F emissions under this subpart, you must conduct a performance test using Method 23 of appendix A-7 to part 60 ofthis chapter. Ifyourkiln or in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass, you must conduct simultaneous performance tests ofthe kiln orin-line kiln/raw mill exhaust and the alkali bypass. You may conduct a performance
test ofthe alkali bypass exhaust when the raw mill ofthe in-line kiln/raw mill is operating or not operating.

(v)(A) Ifsorbent injection is usedfor D/F control, you mustrecord therate of sorbent injection to the kiln exhaust, and where applicable, the rate of sorbent injection to the alkali bypass exhaust, continuously during the period ofthe Method 23 test in accordance with the conditions in §63.1350(m)(9), and include the continuous injection rate record(s) in the performance test report. Determine the sorbent injection
rate parameters in accordance with paragraphs (b)(3)(vi)ofthis section. (B) Include thebrand and type of sorbent used during the performance
test in the performance test report. (C) Maintain a continuous record of either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier gas pressure drop for the duration ofthe performance test.Ifthe carrier gas flow rate is used, determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe accuracy ofthe carrier gas flow rate monitoring system according to the procedures in appendix A to part 75 of this chapter. Ifthe carrier gaspressure drop is used, determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe accuracy ofthe carrier gas pressure drop monitoring system according to the procedures in §63.1350(m)(6).

(vi)Calculate the run average sorbent injection rate for each run and determine and include the average of the run average injection rates in the performance test report and determine the applicable injection rate limit in accordance with §63.1346(c)(1).

(4) THC emissionstest.(i) Ifyou are subject to limitations on THC emissions,
you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements in § 63.1350(i). For thepurposes ofconducting the accuracy and quality assurance evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (aspropane) is 50ppmvd andthe reference method (RM) isMethod 25A ofappendix A topart 60 ofthis chapter.

(ii)Use the THC CEMS to conduct the initial compliance test for the first 30 kiln operating days ofkiln operation after the compliance date ofthe rule. See 63.1348(a).

(iii)Ifkiln gases are diverted through

an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific THC limit using Equation 9:



### (MACT Limit x (Qab+ Qcm + Qks))

- (Qabx Cab)

- (Qcrn x Ccon) 

### Qks

Where: Cks Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd). Qab Alkali bypass flowrate (volume/hr). Cab Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd). Qcm Coalmill flowrate (volume/hr). Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd). Qks = Kiln stack flowrate (volume/hr).

(iv)THC must be measured either upstream ofthe coal mill or the coal mill stack. (v)Instead ofconducting the performance test specified in paragraph (b)(4)ofthis section, you may conduct a performance test to determine emissions oftotal organic HAPby following the procedures in paragraphs (b)(7)ofthis section.

(5) MercuryEmissionsTests. Ifyou

are subject to limitations onmercury emissions, you must operate a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(k). The initial compliance test mustbe based onthe first 30 kiln operating days inwhich the affected source operates using a mercury CEMS or a sorbent trap monitoring system after the compliance date ofthe rule. See §63.1348(a). (i) Ifyou are using a mercury CEMS

or a sorbent trap monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in §63.1350(k)(5). (ii)Calculate the emission rate using Equation 10 ofthis section:

n 

## I 

# CiQ,

E3 

## D (Eq. 10) 

# P

Where:

E3OD = 30-day rolling emission rate of
mercury, lb/MM tons clinker. Ci = Concentration ofmercury for operating hour i, gg/scm. Qi = Volumetric flowrate ofeffluent gas for operating hour i,where Ciand 

### Q are on the same basis (eitherwet or dry), scm/ hr. k = Conversion factor, 1lb/454,000,000 pg.

n =Number ofkiln operating hours in a 30 kiln operating day period. P = 30 days ofclinker production during the

same time period as themercury emissions measured, milliontons.
(6) HCIemissionstests.Fora source subject to limitations onHCl emissions you must conductperformance testing by one ofthe following methods: (i)(A) Ifthe source is equipped with

a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS thatmeets the requirements §63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills, testing shouldbe conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill offconditions. (B) You must establish site specific parameter limits by using the CPMS required in §63.1350(l)(1). Fora wet scrubber ortray tower, measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH in intervals ofno more than 15 minutes during the HCl test. Compute andrecord the 24-hour average pressure drop, pH, and average scrubber water flow rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limitis met.For a dry scrubber, measure and record the sorbent injection rate in intervals ofno

more than 15 minutes during the HCl
test. Compute and record the 24-hour
average sorbent injection rate and average sorbent injection rate for each sampling run in which the applicable emissions limit ismet.

(ii)(A) Ifthe source is not controlled by a wet scrubber, tray tower or dry sorbent injection system, you must operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements of § 63.1350(l)(1). See §63.1348(a).

(B) The initial compliance test must be based onthe 30 kiln operating days that occur after the compliance date of this rule in which the affected source operates using a HCl CEMS. Hourly HCl concentration data mustbe obtained according to §63.1350(1).

(iii)As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(i)(B) ofthis section, you may choose to monitor SO 2 emissions using

aCEMS in accordance with the 

### Cks = ((Eq. 9) 10045

### 10046 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

requirements of §63.1350(l)(3). You
must establish an SO2 operating limit equal to the highest 1hour average recorded during the HCl stack test.This operating limitwill apply only for demonstrating HCl compliance. (iv)Ifkiln gases are diverted through

an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through a separate stack, you must calculate a kiln-specific HCl limit using Equation 11:



# (MAC Limitx (Qab+ Qcm + Qks))

- (Qabx Cab)

- (Qcmx Ccm) 

# Qks

Where: Cks Kiln stack concentration (ppmvd). Qab Alkali bypass flowrate (volume/hr). Cab Alkali bypass concentration (ppmvd). Qcm = Coalmill flowrate (volume/hr). Ccm = Coal mill concentration (ppmvd). Qks = Kiln stack flowrate (volume/hr).

(7) Total OrganicHAPEmissions Tests. Instead ofconducting the performance test specified in paragraph (a)(4) ofthis section, you may conduct

aperformance test to determine emissions oftotal organic HAP by following the procedures in paragraphs (a)(7)(i)through (v)ofthis section.

(i) Use Method 320 ofappendix A to this part, Method 18 ofAppendix A of part 60, ASTM D6348-03 or a combination to determine emissions of total organic HAP. Each performance
test must consist ofthree separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating atthe representative performance conditions in accordance with §63.7(e). Each run must be conducted for at least 1hour. (ii)Atthe same time thatyou are conducting the performance test for total organic HAP, you must also determine a site-specific THC emissions limitby operating a THC CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(j). The duration ofthe performance test mustbe at least 3 hours andthe average THC concentration (as calculated from the 1- minute averages) during the 3-hour test must be calculated. You must establish your THC operating limit and determine compliance with it according to

n X

T=1

Where:

= The THC CEMS average values in

ppmvw. Xi= The THC CEMS data points for allthree

runs i. paragraphs (a)(7)(vii)through (viii)ofthis section. Itis permissible to extend the testing time ofthe organic HAP performance test ifyou believe extended testing is required to adequately capture THC variability over time. (iii)Ifyour source has an in-line kiln/

raw mill you mustuse the fraction of time the raw mill is on andthe fraction oftime thatthe raw mill is offand calculate this limitas a weighted average ofthe THC levels measured during raw mill on and rawmill off testing. (iv)Ifyour organic HAP emissions are below 75 percent ofthe organic HAP standard andyou determine your operating limitwith paragraph (b)(7)(vii) ofthis section your THC CEMS must be calibrated and operated

on a measurement scale no greater than 180 ppmvw, as carbon, or 60 ppmvw as propane. (v)Your THC CEMS measurement scale must be capable ofreading THC concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to two timesyour highest THC emissions average determined during your performance test, including mill on or mill off operation. Note: This
may require the use ofa dualrange instrument to meet this requirement and paragraph (b)(7)(iv)ofthis section. (vi)Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(vii) and (viii)ofthis section. Ifyour organic HAP performance test demonstrates your average organic HAP emission levels are below 75 percent ofyour emission limit (9 ppmv)you will use the average THC

n

i=21

Yi= The sum of organic HAP concentrations for testruns i. and

n =The number ofdata points. (B) You must use your three run average THC CEMS value, andyour three run average organic HAP



## T,=

# (*X value recorded during the organic HAP performance test, and the average total organic HAP result ofyour performance
test to establish your operating limit. If your organic HAP compliance test results demonstrate your average organic HAP emission levels are at or above 75 percent ofyour emission limit,
your operating limit isestablished as the average THC value recorded during the organic HAP performance test.You
must establish a new operating limit after each performance test. You must repeat the performance test no later than 30 months following your last performance test and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results ofthe performance test. (vii)Ifthe average organic HAP results for your three Method 18 and/or Method 320 performance testruns are below 75 percent ofyour organic HAP emission limit,you must calculate an operating limitby establishing a relationship ofTHC CEMS signal to the organic HAP concentration using the average THC CEMS value corresponding
to the three organic HAP compliance
test runs and the average organic HAP total concentration from the Method 18 and/orMethod 320 performance test

runs with theprocedures in (a)(7)(vii)(A) and (B) ofthis section.

(A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average of
your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs, using Equation 12.

q. 12)

concentration fromyour three Method 18 and/or Method 320 compliance tests to determine the operating limit. Use equation 13 to determine your operating limit in units ofppmvwTHC, as propane.



### (Eq. 13) Cks = (Eq. 11)

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

Where:
T1 The 30-day operating limit for your THC CEMS, ppmvw. Y1 The average organic HAP concentration from Eq. 12, ppmv. Xa The average THC CEMS concentration from Eq. 12, ppmvw. (viii)Ifthe average ofyour three organic HAP performance test runsis at or above 75 percent ofyour organic HAP value isbelow your current operating emission limit,you must determine limit, you may opt to retain your current your operating limit using Equation 14 operating limit,but you must still by averaging the THC CEMS output submitall performance test and THC values corresponding to your three CEMS data according to the reporting organic HAP performance testruns that requirements in paragraph (d)(1) ofthis demonstrate compliance with the section. emission limit. Ifyour newTHC CEMS



## T.= X,. 'n

=z 

### (Eq. 14)

Where:
X1 The THC CEMS data points for all runs i.
Y1 The organic HAP total value forruns i.

n =The number of data points. Th = Your site specific operating limit, in
ppmvw THC. (ix)Ifyour kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct separate performance tests while theraw mill is operating ("mill on") and while the raw mill isnot operating ("mill off"). Using the fraction oftimethe raw mill is on andthe fraction oftimethat the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average ofthe THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill offcompliance testing with Equation 15.



### R= (y*t) + (x* (1-t))

Where:
R = Operating limit as THC, ppmvw. y = Average THC CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw. t Percentage ofoperating time with mill on.

x Average THC CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw. (1-t) = Percentage ofoperating time with mill off. (x)To determine continuous compliance with the THC operating limit, you must record the THC CEMS output data for all periods when the process is operating andthe THC CEMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the THC CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units ofthe operating limit (ppmvw)

on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end ofeach new kiln operating day. Use Equation 16 to determine the 30 kiln operating day

average.



## n

>L7pvi

3Okiln operatingday

=- 

## n

Where: Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n =The number ofvalid hourlyparameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days.
(xi)Use EPA Method 18 or Method 320 ofappendix Ato part 60 ofthis chapter to determine organic HAP emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating atthe highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. Ifyour source has an in-line kiln/raw mill you must conduct three separate test runs with the raw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating atthe highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off. Conduct each Method 18 test run to collect a minimum target sample equivalent to three times the method detection limit. Calculate the average of the results from three runs to determine compliance. (xii)Ifthe THC level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-specific THC emissions limit,you must (A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return the THC CEMS measurements to within the established value; and (B) Within 90 days ofthe exceedance

or atthe time ofthe annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance test to determine compliance with the organic HAP limit and to verify or re-establish your sitespecific THC emissions limit.

(8) HCl Emissions Testswith S02 Monitoring. Ifyou choose to monitor SO2 emissions using a CEMS to demonstrate HCIcompliance, follow the procedures in (b)(8)(i) through (ix)of this section and in accordance with the requirements of § 63.1350(l)(3). You must establish an SO2 operating limit equal to the average ofthe SO2 emissions recorded during the HCl stack
test. This operating limit will apply only for demonstrating HCl compliance. (i) Use Method 321 ofappendix A to this part to determine emissions ofHCl. Each performance test must consist of three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the representative performance conditions in accordance with §63.7(e). Each run mustbe conducted for at least one hour. (ii)Atthe same time thatyou are conducting the performance test for HCl, you must also determine a sitespecific SO2 emissions limitby 

### (Eq. 15)



### (Eq. 16) 10047

### 10048 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

operating an S02 CEMS in accordance with the requirements of §63.1350(1). The duration ofthe performance test must be three hours and the average S02 concentration (as calculated from the 1-minute averages) during the 3-hour
test must be calculated. You must establish your S02 operating limit and determine compliance with itaccording
to paragraphs (b)(8)(vii) and (viii)ofthis section.

(iii)Ifyour source has an in-line kiln/

raw mill you must use the fraction of time the raw mill is on andthe fraction oftime thatthe raw mill is offand calculate this limitas a weighted average ofthe S02 levels measured during raw mill on and rawmill off testing. (iv)Your S02 CEMS must be calibrated and operated according to the requirements of §60.63(f). (v)Your S02 CEMS measurement scale must be capable ofreading S02 concentrations consistent with the requirements of §60.63(f), including mill on or mill off operation. (vi)Ifyour kiln has an inlinekiln/raw mill, you must conduct separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating ("mill on") and while the raw mill is not operating ("mill off"). Using the fraction oftimethe raw mill is on andthe fraction oftimethat the raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average ofthe THC levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill offcompliance testing with Equation 17.



### R= (y*t) +x* (t-I)

Where:
R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw. y = Average S02 CEMS value during mill on operations, ppmvw. t Percentage ofoperating time with mill on, expressed as a decimal.

x Average S02 CEMS value during mill off operations, ppmvw. t

- 1 = Percentage ofoperating time with mill off, expressed as a decimal. (vii)To determine continuous compliance with the S02 operating limit, you must record the S02 CEMS output data for all periods when the process is operating andthe S02 CEMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the S02 CEMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units ofthe operating limit (ppmvw)

on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end ofeach new kiln operating day. Use Equation 18 to determine the 30 kiln operating day
average.



## n 

# YHpv,

30kilnoperatingday=

n

Where: Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i, ppmvw.

n =The number ofvalid hourlyparameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days.
(viii)Use EPA Method 321 of appendix Ato part 60 ofthis chapter to determine HCl emissions. For each performance test, conduct at least three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. If your source has an in-line kiln/raw mill
you must conduct three separate test

runs with theraw mill on, and three separate runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is operating at the highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur with the mill off. (ix)Ifthe S02 level exceeds by 10 percent or more your site-specific S02 emissions limit,you must (A) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after the exceedance, conduct an inspection and take corrective action toreturn the S02 CEMS measurements to withinthe established value, and (B) Within 90 days ofthe exceedance

or atthe time ofthe annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct another performance test to determine compliance with the HCl limit andto verify or re-establish your site-specific
S02 emissions limit. (c) PerformanceTestFrequency. Except as provided in §63.1348(b), performance tests are required at regular intervals for affected sources that are subject to a dioxin, organic HAP or HCl emissions limit and must be repeated
every 30 months except forpollutants where that specific pollutant is monitored using CEMS. Tests for PM are repeated every 12 months. (d)PerformanceTestReporting Requirements. (1)You must submit the information specified inparagraphs (d)(1) and (2)ofthis section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test.All reports must be signed bya responsible official.

(ii)The values for the site-specific operating limits or parameters established pursuant toparagraphs (b)(1), (3), (6), and (7)ofthis section, as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, ofhow the operating parameters were established during the initial performance test.

(2)As ofDecember 31, 2011 and within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in §63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity data, tothe EPAby successfully submitting the data electronically to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the Electronic Reporting Tool(ERT) (seehttp://www.epa.gov/ttnl chief/ert/ert tool.html/).

(e) Conditionsof performancetests. Conduct performance tests under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based

onrepresentative performance ofthe affected source for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of performance tests. * 18. Section 63.1350 is amended by: * a.Revising paragraphs (a)through (d); * b. Revisingparagraph (f)introductory text; 

### (Eq. 17)

(Eq. 18)

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

mc.Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(iv) through (f)(1)(vi); * d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i) and (f)(2)(iii);



### me.Revising paragraphs (f)(3)and (f)(4); * f.Revising paragraph (g)(1) introductory text; * g.Revising paragraphs (g)(2) and (g)(4); * h.Revising paragraph (h)(1)(ii); * i.Revising paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2); 

### * j.Revising paragraph (k); * k.Revisingparagraph (1); * 1.Revising paragraph (in) introductory text;

mm. Revising paragraphs (m)(3) and (rn)(7)(i);

mn.Revising introductory textfor paragraphs (m)(9) and (in) (10); * o. Revisingparagraph (m)(10)(i) through (m)(10)(vii), and paragraph (mn)(11)(vM;
* p. Revising introductory textfor paragraphs (n), (o), and (p); * q.Removing andreserving paragraph (n)(3); and

mr.Revising introductory textfor paragraphs (p)(1), (p)(2), and (p)(5).

The revisions and additions read as follows:
§63.1350 Monitoring requirements.

(a)(1) Following the compliance date, the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with this subpart on a continuous basis by meeting the requirements ofthis section. (2)All continuous monitoring datafor periods ofstartup and shutdown must be compiled and averaged separately from data gathered during other operating periods.

(3)Foreach existing unitthat is equipped with a CMS, maintain the average emissions or the operating parameter values within the operating parameter limits established through performance tests. (4) Any instance where the owner or operator fails to comply with the continuous monitoring requirements of this section is aviolation. (b)PMmonitoringrequirements.(1)(i) PMCPMS.You will use a PM CPMS to establish a site-specific operating limit corresponding to theresults ofthe performance test demonstrating compliance with the PM limit. You will conduct your performance test using Method 5or Method 5I at appendix A3to part 60 ofthis chapter. You will use the PM CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with this operating limit. You must repeat the performance test annually and reassess and adjust the site-specific operating limit in accordance with the results of the performance test using the procedures in §63.1349(b)(1) (i) through (vi)ofthis subpart. You must alsorepeat the test ifyou change the analytical range ofthe instrument, or ifyou replace the instrument itselfor any principle analytical component ofthe instrument that would alter the relationship ofoutput signal to in-stack PM concentration. (ii)To determine continuous compliance, you must use the PM CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating andthe PM CPMS is not out-of-control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the PM CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units ofthe operating limit (milliamps)on a 30 operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end ofeach new kiln operating day. (iii)For any exceedance ofthe 30 process operating day PM CPMS average value from the established operating parameter limit, you must: (A)Within 48 hours ofthe exceedance, visually inspect the APCD; (B) Ifinspection ofthe APCD identifies the cause ofthe exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the PM CPMS
measurement to within the established value; and (C) Within 30 days ofthe exceedance

or atthe time ofthe annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct a PM emissions compliance testto determine compliance with the PM emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the PM CPMS operating limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct additional testing for any exceedances that occur between the time ofthe original exceedance and the PM emissions compliance testrequired under this paragraph. (iv)PM CPMS exceedances leading to

more than four required performance
tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling monthly)constitute a presumptive violation ofthis subpart. (2) [Reserved] (c) [Reserved] (d) Clinker productionmonitoring requirements.In order to determine clinker production, you must: (1)Determine hourly clinker production by one oftwo methods: (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in
tons-mass per hour ofthe amount of clinker produced. The system of measuring hourly clinker production
must be maintained within +5 percent
accuracy,or (ii)Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh scale system to measure and record weight rates in
tons-mass per hour ofthe amount of feed to the kiln. The system of measuring feed mustbe maintained within +5 percent accuracy. Calculate your hourly clinker production rate using a kiln-specific feed to clinker ratio based onreconciled clinker production determined for accounting purposes and recorded feed rates. Update this ratio monthly. Note that ifthis ratio changes
atclinker reconciliation, you must use the new ratio going forward, but you do
not have to retroactively change clinker production rates previously estimated. (iii) [Reserved] (2)Determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker production (or feed mass flow ifapplicable) before initial use (fornew sources) orby the effective compliance date ofthisrule (forexisting sources). During each quarter ofsource operation, you must determine, record, and maintain a record ofthe ongoing accuracy ofthe system ofmeasuring hourly clinker production (or feed massflow). (3)Ifyou measure clinker production directly, record the daily clinker production rates; ifyou measure the kiln feed rates and calculate clinker production, record the hourly kiln feed and clinker production rates.

(4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (p)(4)ofthis section.

* * * * *

(f)Opacity MonitoringRequirements. Ifyou are subject to a limitation on opacity under §63.1345, you must conductrequired opacity monitoring in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (vii)ofthis section and in accordance with your monitoring plan developed under §63.1350(p). You must also develop an opacity monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) and paragraph (o)(5), ifapplicable, ofthis section.

(1)* * * (iv)Ifvisible emissions are observed during any Method 22 performance test, ofappendix A-7 to part 60 ofthis chapter, you must conduct 30 minutes ofopacity observations, recorded at 15- second intervals, in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 performance test, ofappendix A-4 to part 60 ofthis chapter, must begin within 1hour of any observation ofvisible emissions.

(v)Any totally enclosed conveying system transfer point, regardless ofthe location ofthe transfer point is not required to conduct Method 22 visible emissions monitoring under this 

### 10049

### 10050 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

paragraph. The enclosures for these transfer points mustbe operated and maintained as total enclosures on a continuingbasis in accordance with the facility operations and maintenance plan. (vi)Ifany partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system transfer point islocated in abuilding, you must conduct a Method 22 performance test, ofappendix A-7 to part 60 ofthis chapter, according to the requirements ofparagraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv)ofthis section for each such conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the building itself, according to paragraph (f)(1)(vii) ofthis section.

(2)(i) For a raw mill or finish mill, you must monitor opacity by conducting dailyvisible emissions observations of the mill sweep and air separator PM control devices (PMCD) ofthese affected

sources in accordance with the procedures ofMethod 22 of appendix A-7 to part 60 ofthis chapter. The duration ofthe Method 22 performance
test must be 6 minutes.

(iii)Ifvisible emissions are observed during the follow-up Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(ii) ofthis section from any stack from which visible emissions were observed during the previous Method 22 performance test required by paragraph (f)(2)(i) ofthe section, you must then conduct an opacity test ofeach stack from which emissions were observed during the follow up Method 22 performance test in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. The duration ofthe Method 9 test must be 30 minutes. (3)Ifvisible emissions are observed during any Method 22 visible emissions
test conducted under paragraphs (f)(1)

or (2)ofthis section, you must initiate, within one-hour, the corrective actions specified in your operation and maintenance plan as required in §63.1347.

(4) The requirements under paragraph (f)(2) ofthis section to conduct daily Method 22 testing do not apply to any specific raw mill or finish mill equipped with a COMS or BLDS. (i) Ifthe owner or operator chooses to install a COMS in lieu ofconducting the dailyvisible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) ofthis section, then the COMS must be installed atthe outlet ofthe PM control device ofthe

raw mill or finish mill andthe COMS
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 ofthis chapter. (ii)Ifyou choose to install a BLDS in lieu ofconducting the daily visible emissions testing required under paragraph (f)(2) ofthis section, the requirements in paragraphs (m)(1) through (m)(4), (m)(10) and (m)(11) of this section apply. (g) * * * (1)You must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a CMS to record the temperature ofthe exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, ifapplicable, at the inlet to, or upstream of,the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCDs.

• * * * *

(2)You must monitor and continuously record the temperature of the exhaust gases from the kiln and alkali bypass, ifapplicable, at the inlet
to the kiln and/or alkali bypass PMCD.

• * * * *

(4) Calculate therolling three-hour average temperature using the average of 180 successive one-minute average temperatures. See §63.1349(b)(3).

• * * * *

(h) * * * (1) * * * (ii)Each hour, calculate the threehour rolling average activated carbon injection rate for the previous three hours ofprocess operation. See §63.1349(b)(3).

• * * * *



### (i)* * * (1)You must install, operate, and maintain a THC continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 ofthis chapter and comply with all ofthe requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in the general provisions, subpart A ofthis part. The owner or operator must operate and maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1of appendix F in part 60 ofthis chapter. (2)Performance tests on alkali bypass and coal mill stacks must be conducted using Method 25A in appendix Ato40 CFR part 60 and repeated annually.

(k)MercuryMonitoringRequirements. Ifyou have a kiln subject to an emissions limitation on mercury emissions, you must install and operate

a mercury continuous emissions monitoring system (Hg CEMS) in accordance with Performance Specification 12A (PS 12A) ofappendix B topart 60 ofthis chapter or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification 12B (PS 12B) ofappendix B to part 60 ofthis chapter. You must monitor mercury continuously according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (5)ofthis section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) ofthis section. (1)You must use a spanvalue for any Hg CEMS that represents the mercury concentration corresponding to approximately two times the emissions standard and maybe rounded up to the
nearest multiple of5gg/m 3 oftotal mercury orhigher level ifnecessary to include Hg concentrations which may

occur (excluding concentrations during in-line raw "mill off" operation). As specified in PS 12A, Section 6.1.1, the datarecorder output range must include the full range ofexpected Hg concentration values which would include those expected during "mill off" conditions. Engineering judgments made and calculations usedto determine the corresponding span concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records.

(2)In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one ofthe two options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (ii)ofthis section.

(i) Include a second span that encompasses the Hg emission concentrations expected tobe encountered during "mill off" conditions. This second spanmay be rounded to a multiple of5gg/m 3 oftotal mercury. The requirements ofPS 12A, shallbe followed forthis second span with the exception that aRATA with the mill offisnot required. (ii)Quality assure any data above the span value established in paragraph (k)(1) ofthis section using the following procedure. Any time two consecutive one-hour average measured concentration ofHg exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before

orafter, introduce a higher, "above span" Hg reference gas standard to the Hg CEMS. The "above span" reference gas must meet the requirements ofPS 12A, Section 7.1, must be of a concentration level between 50 and 150 percent ofthe highest hourly concentration measured during the period ofmeasurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results ofthis procedure asyou would for a daily calibration. The "above span" calibration is successful ifthe value measured by the Hg CEMS is within 20 percent ofthe certified value ofthe reference gas. Ifthe value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent oftheFederal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

certified value ofthe reference gas, then the span during the 24-hour period CEMS response to the reference gas as you must normalize the one-hour preceding or following the "above span" shown in equation 19:
average stack gas values measured above calibration for reporting based on the Hg



## Certifiedreference gasvalue
Measuredvalueofreference gas

= Normalized stackgasresult xMeasured stack gasresult

Only one 'above span' calibration is

needed per 24 hour period. (3)You must operate and maintain each Hg CEMS or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 5of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. During the RATA of integrated sorbent trap monitoring systems required under Procedure 5, you may apply the appropriate exception for sorbent trap section 2 breakthrough in (k)(3)(i) through (iv)of this section: (i) For stack Hg concentrations >1 jig/ dscm, <10% ofsection 1mass;

(ii)For stack Hg concentrations <1 jig/ dscm and >0.5 jig/dscm, <20% of section 1mass;

(iii)For stack Hg concentrations <0.5 jig/dscm and >0.1 jig/dscm, <50% of section 1mass; and

(iv)For stack Hg concentrations <0.1 jig/dscm, no breakthrough criterion assuming all other QA/QC specifications are met.

(4) Relative accuracy testing of mercury monitoring systems underPS 12A, PS 12B, or Procedure 5 mustbe conducted at normal operating conditions. Ifa facility has an inline raw mill, the testing must occur with the

raw mill on. (5)Ifyou use a Hg CEMS or an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system, you must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an instrument for continuously measuring and recording the exhaust gas flow rate to the atmosphere according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) ofthis section. Ifkiln gases

are diverted through an alkali bypass or to a coal mill and exhausted through separate stacks, you must account for the mercury emitted from those stacks by following theprocedures in (k)(5)(i) through (iv)ofthis section: (i) Develop a mercury hourly mass emissions rateby conducting annual performance tests using Method 29, or Method 30B, tomeasure the concentration ofmercury in the gases exhausted from the alkali bypass and coal mill. (ii)On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercuryin lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the mercury hourly emissions rate, the exhaust gas flowrate and hourly mercury emission rate to calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr. (iii)Sum the hourly mercury emissions from the kiln, alkali bypass and coal mill to determine total mercury emissions. Using hourly clinker production, calculate the hourly emissions rate in pounds per ton of clinker to determine your 30 day rolling
average. (iv)Ifmercury emissions from the coal mill are below the method detection limit for two consecutive annual performance tests, you may reduce the frequency ofthe performance
tests ofcoal mills to once every 30 months. Ifthe measured mercury concentration exceeds the method detection limit, you must revert to testing annually until two consecutive annual tests are below the method detection limit. (6) Ifyou operate an integrated sorbent trap monitoring system conforming to PS 12B, you may use a monitoring period at least 24 hours but

no longer than 168 hours in length. You should use a monitoring period that is

a multiple of24 hours (except during relative accuracy testing as allowed in PS 12B). (1)HCIMonitoringRequirements.If you are subject to an emissions limitation on HCl emissions in §63.1343, you must monitor HCl emissions continuously according to paragraph (1)(1) or (2) and paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) ofthis section or, if your kiln iscontrolled using a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, you alternatively may parametrically monitor S0 2 emissions continuously according to paragraph (1)(3) ofthis section. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) ofthis section. (1)Ifyou monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limitby operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance Specification 15 (PS 15) ofappendix B to part 60 of this chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any otherperformance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 ofthis chapter. You must operate, maintain, and quality assure a HCl CEMS installed and certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter except thatthe Relative Accuracy Test Auditrequirements of Procedure 1must be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 ofPS 15. Ifyou install and operate an HCl CEMS in accordance with any other performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 ofthis chapter, you must operate, maintain and quality assure the HCl CEMS using the procedure of appendix F topart 60 ofthis chapter applicable to the performance specification. You must use Method 321 ofappendix A topart 63 ofthis chapter

as the reference test method for conducting relative accuracy testing. The spanvalue and calibration requirements in paragraphs (1)(1)(i) and (ii)ofthis section apply to HCl CEMS otherthan those installed and certified under PS 15. (i) You must use a span value for any HCl CEMS thatrepresents the intended upper limit ofthe HCl concentration
measurement range during normal inline raw "mill on" operation. The
span value should be a concentration equivalent to approximately two times the emissions standard and itmay be rounded to the nearest multiple of5
ppm ofHCl. The HCl CEMS data recorder outputrange must include the full range ofexpected HCl concentration values which would include those expected during "mill off" conditions. Engineering judgments made and calculations used to determine the corresponding span concentration from the emission standard shall be documented in the site-specific monitoring plan and associated records. (ii)In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, you must use one ofthe two options in paragraphs (1)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) ofthis section.

(A) Include a second span that encompasses the HCl emission concentrations expected tobe 

### (Eq. 19) 1005110052 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

encountered during "mill off" conditions. This second spanmay be rounded to a multiple of 5gg/m 3 oftotal HCl.The requirements ofthe appropriate HCl monitor performance specification, shall be followed for this second span with the exception that a RATA with the mill off is not required. (B) Quality assure any data above the
span value established in paragraph (1)(1)(i) ofthis section using the following procedure. Any time the average measured concentration ofHCl exceeds or is expected to exceed the
span value for greater thantwo hours you must, within a period 24 hours before or after the 'above span' period, introduce a higher, 'above span' HCl reference gas standard to the HCl CEMS. The 'above span' reference gas must



## Certifiedreferenc meet the requirements ofthe applicable performance specification and be of a concentration level between 50 and 100 percent ofthe highest hourly concentration measured during the period ofmeasurements above span, and must be introduced at the probe. Record and report the results ofthis procedure asyou wouldfor a daily calibration. The 'above span' calibration is successful ifthe value measured by the HCl CEMS is within 20 percent of the certified value ofthe reference gas. Ifthe value measured by the HCl CEMS is not within 20 percent ofthe certified value ofthe reference gas, then you must normalize the stack gas values measured above span as described in paragraph (1)(1)(ii)(C) below. Ifthe 'above span' calibration isconducted during the period when measured



## egasvalue x 

## Measuredstackgasre:, Measured valueotreterence gas

= Normalizedstackgasresult emissions are above span and there is a failure to collect the required minimum number ofdata points in an hour due to the calibration duration, then you must determine the emissions average for that missed hour as the average ofhourly
averages for the hour preceding the missed hour and the hour following the missed hour. (C) In the event thatthe 'above span' calibration is not successful (i.e., the HCI CEMS measured value is not within 20 percent ofthe certified value ofthe reference gas), thenyou mustnormalize the one-hour average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24- hour period preceding or following the 'above span' calibration for reporting based onthe HCICEMS response to the reference gas as shown in Equation 20:



### suit (Eq. 20)

Only one 'above span' calibration is

needed per 24-hour period. (2)Install, operate, and maintain a CMS tomonitor wet scrubber or tray tower parameters, as specified in paragraphs (m)(5) and (7)ofthis section, and dry scrubber, as specified in paragraph (m)(9) ofthis section. (3)Ifthe source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray tower, and
you choose to monitor S02 emissions, monitor S02 emissions continuously according to the requirements of §60.63(e) through (f)ofpart 60 subpart F ofthis chapter. IfS02 levels increase above the 30-day rolling average S02 operating limitestablished during your performance test,you must: (i) As soon as possible but no later than 48 hours after you exceed the established S02 value conduct an inspection and take corrective action to return the S02 emissions to within the operating limit; and

(ii)Within 60 days ofthe exceedance

orat the time ofthe next compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance testto determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the SO2 CEMS operating limit.

(m)Parameter Monitoring Requirements.Ifyou have an operating limit thatrequires the use ofaCMS, you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) ofthis section by the compliance date specified in §63.1351. You must also meet the applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs (m)(5) through (11) that are applicable toyou.

* * * * *

(3)Determine the 1-hour block
average ofall recorded readings.

* * * * *

(7) * * * (i) Locate the pH sensor in aposition that provides a representative
measurement ofwet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH.

* * * * *

(9) MassFlowRate(forSorbent Injection)Monitoring Requirements.If you have an operating limit that requires the use ofequipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii)ofthis section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent injection equipment ofa dry scrubber.

(10) Bagleakdetectionmonitoring requirements.Ifyou elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply withthe requirements ofthis subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii)ofthis section.

(i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack ofthe fabric filter. (ii)Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in

amanner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications andrecommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997. (iii)The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer tobe capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams
per actual cubic meter. (iv)The BLDS sensor must provide output ofrelative or absolute PM loadings. (v)The BLDS must be equipped with

a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.

(vi)The BLDS must be equipped with

an alarm system that will alert an operator automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm mustbe located such thatthe alert is detected andrecognized easily by an operator.

(vii)Forpositive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all compartments ofcells to a common stack, aBLDS must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.

* * * * *

(11) * * * (v)Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS; or

* * * * *

(n) Continuous FlowRateMonitoring System. You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to therequirements in

### Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) ofthis section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flowrate to allow determination ofthe pollutant

mass emissions rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions limitation thathas a pounds per ton of clinker unit.

(o)AlternateMonitoring RequirementsApproval.You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards ofthis subpart, except for emission standards for THC, subject to the provisions ofparagraphs (o)(1) through (6) ofthis section.

(p)DevelopmentandSubmittal(Upon Request) of MonitoringPlans.Ifyou demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limitthrough performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) ofthis section. This requirement also applies to you ifyou petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) ofthis section and 

### §63.8(f). Ifyou use a BLDS, you must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5)ofthis section.

(1)Foreach CMS required inthis section,you must develop, and submit
to the permitting authority for approval
upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (iii)ofthis section. You must submitthis site-specific monitoring plan, ifrequested, at least 30 days before
your initial performance evaluation of
your CMS.

(2)Inyour site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address paragraphs (p)(2)(i)through (iii)ofthis section.

(5)BLDSMonitoring Plan.Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i)through (v)ofthis section. At a minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1)through (4), (m)(10) and (11) ofthis sectionfor

a period of5years, with atleast the first 2years on-site;

* 19. Section 63.1351 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: §63.1351 Compliance dates.

(c) The compliance date for existing

sources for all the requirements that became effective on February 12, 2013, except for the open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 2015. (d)The compliance date for new

sources isFebruary 12, 2013, or startup, whichever is later. (e) The compliance date for existing

sources withthe requirements for open clinker storage piles in 

### §63.1343(c) is February 12, 2014. * 20. Section 63.1352 is amendedby revising paragraph (b)to read as follows:
§63.1352 Additionaltest methods.

(b) Owners or operators conducting
tests to determine the rates ofemission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, and kilns at Portland
cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in applicability determinations under 

### §63.1340 ofthis subpart are permitted to use Method 320 of appendix Ato this part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 ofthis chapter. * 21. Section 63.1353 is amendedby adding paragraph (b)(6) toread as follows:
§63.1353 NotificationRequirements.

(b) * * * (6) Within 48 hours ofan exceedance that triggers retesting to establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the appropriate permitting agency ofthe planned performance tests. The notification requirements of

### §§ 63.7(b) and 63.9(e) do not apply to retesting required for exceedances underthis subpart. * 22. Section 63.1354 is amendedby:

ma. Removing andreserving paragraphs (b)(4) and (5); * b. Revising paragraph (b)(9)(vi);

mc. Addingparagraph (b)(9)(vii); and * d.Revising paragraph (c).

The revisions read as follows:
§63.1354 Reporting requirements.

(b) * * * (9) * * *
(vi)Foreach PM, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must submit reports tothe EPA'sWebFIRE database by using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) thatis accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx). You must use the appropriate electronic reporting form in CEDRI or provide an alternate electronic file consistent with the EPA's reporting form output format. For each reporting period, thereports must include all of the calculated 30- operating day rolling average values derived from the CEMS or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems. (vii)In response to each violation of

an emissions standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, duration and description ofeach violation and the specific actions taken for eachviolation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results of those actions.

(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction. For each failure to meet astandard or emissions limit causedby a malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in the semi-annual compliance report required by 

### §63.1354(b)(9). The report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause ofeach event (includingunknown cause, if applicable), and a sum ofthe number of
events in the reporting period. The report must listfor each event the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume ofeach regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet

a standard, and a description ofthe method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description ofactions taken by an owner

oroperator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with 

### §63.1348(d), including actions takento correct a malfunction.
* 23. Section 63.1355 is amendedby revising paragraphs (f)and (g)(1) and adding paragraph (h)to read as follows:
§63.1355 Recordkeeping Requirements.

(f)You must keep records ofthe date, time and duration ofeach startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard applicable at other times, and the quantity offeed and fuel used during the startup or shutdown period. (g)(1) You must keep records ofthe date, time and duration ofeach malfunction that causes an affected

source to fail to meet an applicable standard; ifthere was also amonitoring malfunction, the date, time and duration ofthe monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affected source or equipment, an estimate ofthe volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed
to meet a standard, and a description of 10053

### 10054 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 29/Tuesday, February 12, 2013/Rules and Regulations

the method used to estimate the emissions.

* * * * *

(h)For each exceedance from an emissions standard or established operating parameter limit,you must keep records ofthe date, duration and description ofeach exceedance and the specific actions taken for each exceedance including inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results of those actions.

* 24. Section 63.1356 isrevised toread

as follows: 

### §63.1356 Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring requirements.

Ifan affected facility subject tothis subpart has a different emissions limit

or requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, the owner or operator of the affected facility must comply with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement and is exempt from the less stringent requirement. * 25. Section 63.1357 is amendedby revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2)to read

as follows:

§63.1357 Temporary, conditioned exemption from particulate matter and opacitystandards. 

### (a) * * * (1)Any PM and opacity standards of part 60 or part 63 ofthis chapter that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers.

(2)Any permit or other emissions or operating parameter or other limitation

onworkplace practices that are applicable to cement kilns and clinker coolers to ensure compliance with any PM and opacity standards ofthispart or part 60 ofthis chapter.

* * * * *

* 26. Table 3to SubpartLLL ofPart63 is revised by revising the entries for 63.6(e)(3), 63.7(b), and 63.9(e) to read as follows:

TABLE 

### 3-To SUBPART LLL OF PART 63-APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS

Citation Requirement Applies to Subpart LLL Explanation

63.6(e)(3)

.......... Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan No

.............. Your operations and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and shutdown. See §63.1347(a)(1).

63.7(b)

.............. Notification period

............................ Yes

............ Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See §63.1353(b)(6)

63.9(e)

.............. Notification of performance test

...... Yes

............ Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See §63.1353(b)(6)

[FR Doe. 2012-31633 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P