[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35122-35136]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15718]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442; FRL-9981-06-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS92


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Residual Risk and Technology 
Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source 
category regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). These final amendments include no revisions to the 
numerical emission limits of the rule based on the RTR. The amendments 
reflect corrections and clarifications of the rule requirements and 
provisions. While the amendments do not result in reductions in 
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), this action results in 
improved monitoring, compliance, and implementation of the rule.

DATES: This final action is effective on July 25, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov 
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, 
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as 
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 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 Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1103; fax number: (919) 541-4991; and email 
address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4a7a0bba6b1adfab6a6bdb5ba94b1a4b5fab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb989f84998e92c58999828a85ab8e9b8ac58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-0881; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#026a6b7076782c68636f6771426772632c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abc3c2d9dfd185c1cac6ced8ebcedbca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5 (E-
19J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone 
number: (312) 353-6266; email address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1c7d656e796f326f7d6e7d5c796c7d327b736a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4d2c343f283e633e2c3f2c0d283d2c632a223b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and 
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to

[[Page 35123]]

ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA 
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACI activated carbon injection
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrochloric acid
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
lb pounds
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meters
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry basis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
RTR residual risk and technology review
SO<INF>2</INF> sulfur dioxide
TEF toxicity equivalence factors
TEQ toxic equivalents
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code

    Background information. On September 21, 2017, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP based on 
our RTR. In this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for 
the rule. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely 
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this 
preamble. A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and 
the EPA's responses to those comments is available in ``Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses on Proposed Rules,'' Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0442. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory 
language that incorporates the changes in this action is available in 
the docket.
    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source 
category and how does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the 
source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry source category in our September 21, 2017, 
proposed rule?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source 
category?
    C. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    D. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry Source Category
    C. Other Amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry NESHAP
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Table 1 of this preamble lists the NESHAP and associated regulated 
industrial source category that is the subject of this final rule. 
Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 
for readers regarding the entities that this action is likely to 
affect. The rule standards will be directly applicable to the affected 
sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities are not 
affected by this action. As defined in the Initial List of Categories 
of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 (57 FR 31576), the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source 
category is any facility engaged in manufacturing portland cement by 
either the wet or dry process. The category includes, but is not 
limited to, the following process units: kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill 
system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, 
clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transfer points, 
bagging, and bulk loading and unloading systems. The source category 
does not include those kilns that burn hazardous waste and are subject 
to and regulated under 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE, or kilns that burn 
solid waste and are subject to the Commercial and Industrial Solid 
Waste Incineration (CISWI) rule under 40 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 60, subpart CCCC, and 40 CFR part 60, subpart DDDD.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               NESHAP and source category                  NAICS\1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry..................          327310
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP, 
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

[[Page 35124]]

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this 
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/portland-cement-manufacturing-industry-national-emission-standards. 
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the 
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same 
website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project websites for the RTR 
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
(the Court) by September 24, 2018. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also 
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person 
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was 
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public 
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for 
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and 
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule. 
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a 
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. 
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate 
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General 
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited 
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can 
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or 
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them 
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8 
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 82 FR 44254, September 21, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The EPA initially promulgated the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry NESHAP on June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), under title 40, part 
63, subpart LLL of the CFR. The rule was amended on April 5, 2002 (67 
FR 16614); July 5, 2002 (67 FR 44766); December 6, 2002 (67 FR 72580); 
December 20, 2006 (71 FR 76518); September 9, 2010 (75 FR 54970); 
January 18, 2011 (76 FR 2832); February 12, 2013 (78 FR 10006); July 
27, 2015 (80 FR 44772); September 11, 2015 (80 FR 54728); and July 25, 
2016 (81 FR

[[Page 35125]]

48356). The amendments further defined affected cement kilns as those 
used to manufacture portland cement, except for kilns that burn 
hazardous waste, and are subject to and regulated under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart EEE, and kilns that burn solid waste, which are subject to the 
CISWI rule under 40 CFR part 60, subpart CCCC, and 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart DDDD. Additionally, onsite sources that are subject to 
standards for nonmetallic mineral processing plants in 40 CFR part 60, 
subpart OOO, are not subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL. Crushers 
are not covered by 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, regardless of their 
location. The subpart LLL NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from new and 
existing portland cement production facilities that are major or area 
sources of HAP, with one exception. Kilns located at facilities that 
are area sources are not regulated for hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
emissions.
    Portland cement manufacturing is an energy-intensive process in 
which cement is made by grinding and heating a mixture of raw materials 
such as limestone, clay, sand, and iron ore in a rotary kiln. The kiln 
is a large furnace that is fueled by coal, oil, gas, coke, and/or 
various waste materials. The product, known as clinker, from the kiln 
is cooled, ground, and then mixed with a small amount of gypsum to 
produce portland cement.
    The main source of air toxics emissions from a portland cement 
plant is the kiln. Emissions originate from the burning of fuels and 
heating of feed materials. Air toxics are also emitted from the 
grinding, cooling, and materials handling steps in the manufacturing 
process. Pollutants regulated under the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, 
are particulate matter (PM) as a surrogate for non-mercury HAP metals, 
total hydrocarbons (THC) as a surrogate for organic HAP other than 
dioxins and furans (D/F), organic HAP as an alternative to the limit 
for THC, mercury, HCl (from major sources only), and D/F expressed as 
toxic equivalents (TEQ). The kiln is regulated for all HAP and raw 
material dryers are regulated for THC or the alternative organic HAP. 
Clinker coolers are regulated for PM. Finish mills and raw mills are 
regulated for opacity. During periods of startup and shutdown, the 
kiln, clinker cooler, and raw material dryer are regulated by work 
practice standards. Open clinker storage piles are regulated by work 
practice standards. The emission standards for the affected sources are 
summarized in Table 2.

                             Table 2--Emission Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     And the operating mode   And it is located at   Your emissions limits   And the units of the  The oxygen correction
     If your source is a (an):                 is:                     a:                     are:           emissions limit are:        factor is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing kiln...................  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM \1\ 0.07..........  Pounds (lb)/ton        NA.
                                                                                                             clinker.
                                     ......................  ......................  D/F \2\ 0.2..........  Nanograms/dry          7 percent.
                                                                                                             standard cubic
                                                                                                             meters (ng/dscm)
                                                                                                             (TEQ).
                                     ......................  ......................  Mercury 55...........  lb/million (MM) tons   NA.
                                                                                                             clinker.
                                     ......................  ......................  THC 3 4 24...........  Parts per million,     7 percent.
                                                                                                             volumetric dry
                                                                                                             (ppmvd).
2. Existing kiln...................  Normal operation......  Major source..........  HCl 3................  ppmvd................  7 percent.
3. Existing kiln...................  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                      standards
                                                                                      (63.1346(g)).
4. New kiln........................  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM \1\ 0.02..........  lb/ton clinker.......  NA.
                                     ......................  ......................  D/F \2\ 0.2..........  ng/dscm (TEQ)........  7 percent.
                                     ......................  ......................  Mercury 21...........  lb/MM tons clinker...  NA.
                                     ......................  ......................  THC 3 4 24...........  ppmvd................  7 percent.
5. New kiln........................  Normal operation......  Major source..........  HCl 3................  ppmvd................  7 percent.
6. New kiln........................  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                      standards
                                                                                      (63.1346(g)).
7. Existing clinker cooler.........  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM 0.07..............  lb/ton clinker.......  NA.
8. Existing clinker cooler.........  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                      standards
                                                                                      (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 shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                      standards
                                                                                      (63.1348(b)(9)).
11. Existing or new raw material     Normal operation......  Major or area source..  THC 3 4 24...........  ppmvd................  NA.
 dryer.
12. Existing or new raw material     Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
 dryer.                                                                               standards
                                                                                      (63.1348(b)(9)).
13. Existing or new raw or finish    All operating modes...  Major source..........  Opacity 10...........  percent..............  NA.
 mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 5I and consist of three test runs.
\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 degrees Fahrenheit or less, this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\3\ Measured as propane.
\4\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.


[[Page 35126]]

C. What changes did we propose for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry source category in our September 21, 2017, proposed rule?

    On September 21, 2017, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP, 
40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, that took into consideration the RTR 
analyses (82 FR 44254). In the proposed rule, we found that risks due 
to emissions of air toxics from this source category are acceptable and 
that the standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, and we identified no new cost-effective controls under the 
technology review to achieve further emissions reductions. We proposed 
no revisions to the numerical emission limits based on these analyses. 
However, the EPA did propose amendments to correct and clarify rule 
requirements and provisions.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry source category. This action also finalizes other changes to 
the NESHAP including amendments to correct and clarify rule 
requirements and provisions.

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

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, based 
on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). 
Specifically, we determined that risks from the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry source category are acceptable, that the 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health, 
and that it is not necessary to set a more stringent standard to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received no new data 
or other information during the public comment period that changed this 
determination. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls 
under CAA section 112(f)(2).

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

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, based 
on the technology review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). 
Specifically, we determined that there are no developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies that warrant revisions 
to the MACT standards for this source category. The EPA received no new 
data or other information during the public comment period that 
affected the technology review determination. Therefore, we are not 
requiring additional control under CAA section 112(d)(6).

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

    In the September 21, 2017, proposed rule, we proposed additional 
revisions, which included changes to clarify monitoring, testing, and 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and the correction of 
typographical errors. Based on the comments received, we are now 
finalizing the following amendments to the rule:
    <bullet> We correct a paragraph in the reporting requirements that 
mistakenly required that affected sources report their 30-operating day 
rolling average for D/F temperature monitoring.
    <bullet> We correct a provision that required facility owners or 
operators to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln 
feed rates.
    <bullet> We clarify that the submittal dates for semiannual summary 
reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 days after the end 
of the reporting period.
    <bullet> We resolve conflicting provisions that apply when a sulfur 
dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) continuous parametric monitoring system is 
used to monitor HCl compliance.
    <bullet> We clarify that the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.1349(b)(1)(vi) only applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
    <bullet> We clarify that the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL D/F 
standards were developed based on toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) 
developed in 1989, as referenced in the TEQ definition section of the 
rule (40 CFR 63.1341).
    <bullet> We clarify that the performance test requirements for 
affected sources that have been idle through one or more periods that 
required a performance test to demonstrate compliance.
    <bullet> We remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and Table 2 that contain 
emission limits that were applicable prior to September 2015.
    <bullet> We revise Equation 18 of the rule to include a missing 
term in the equation.
    <bullet> We revise 40 CFR 63.1350(g)(4) to say ``record'' instead 
of ``report.''

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

    Because these amendments only provide corrections and 
clarifications to the current rule and do not impose new requirements 
on the industry, we are making these amendments effective and are 
requiring compliance upon promulgation of the final rule.

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

    This section provides a description of our proposed action and this 
final action, the EPA's rationale for the final decisions and 
amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses. Other 
comments, comment summaries, and the EPA's responses can be found 
``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from 
Portland Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) Residual 
Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments: Summary of Public 
Comments and Responses on Proposed Rules,'' which is available in the 
docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442).

A. Residual Risk Review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing Industry source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a residual risk 
review and presented the results of this review, along with our 
proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of 
safety, and adverse environmental effects, in the September 21, 2017, 
proposed rule (82 FR 44254). The results of the risk assessment are 
presented briefly in Table 3, and in more detail in the document titled 
``Residual Risk Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source 
Category in Support of the July 2018 Final Rule,'' available in the 
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442).

[[Page 35127]]



                         Table 3--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Cancer MIR (in-1 million)                        Population  Population
                                    -----------------------------------------------   Cancer     with risk   with risk
                                                                                     incidence   of 1-in-1  of 10-in-1
                                         Based on actual       Based on allowable   (cases per  million or  million or      Max chronic noncancer HI
                                            emissions              emissions         year) \1\    greater     greater
                                                                                                    \1\         \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Category....................  1 (formaldehyde,        4 (formaldehyde,             0.01         130           0  HI < 1 (Actuals and
                                      benzene).               benzene).                                                 Allowables).
Whole Facility.....................  70 (arsenic and         .....................        0.02      20,000         690  HI = 1 (Actuals).
                                      chromium VI).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cancer incidence and populations exposed are based upon actual emissions.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment based 
on actual emissions from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
source category indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer 
risk posed by the 91 facilities is 1-in-1 million or less. The total 
estimated cancer incidence from this source category is 0.01 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one excess case in every 100 years. Regarding 
the noncancer risk assessment, the maximum chronic noncancer target 
organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) for the source category could be up 
to 0.02 (for respiratory health effects) from the portland cement 
manufacturing processes. Regarding short-term (acute) health hazards 
posed by actual baseline emissions, the highest screening acute hazard 
quotient (HQ) for the source category is estimated to be 0.2. No 
facilities were found to have an acute HQ greater than 1 for any of the 
acute benchmarks examined.
    Potential multipathway health risks under a fisher and farmer 
scenario were identified using a 3-tier screening analysis of HAP known 
to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment emitted by 
facilities in this source category and, if necessary, a site-specific 
assessment utilizing TRIM.FaTE. Based on the results of the 
multipathway cancer screening analyses of arsenic and dioxin emissions, 
we conclude that the cancer risk from ingestion exposure to the 
individual most exposed is less than 1-in-1 million for arsenic, and, 
based on a tier 3 analysis, less than 20-in-1 million for dioxins. 
Based on the tier 1 multipathway screening analysis of cadmium 
emissions and the refined site-specific multipathway analysis of 
mercury emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI due to ingestion 
exposure is less than 1 for actual emissions.
    Finally, potential differences between actual emission levels and 
the maximum emissions allowable under the EPA's standards (i.e., 
``allowable emissions'') were also calculated for the source category. 
Allowable emissions were calculated using the emission limits for 
existing sources in the current NESHAP in conjunction with the emission 
factors for metallic HAP, organic HAP and D/F congeners, as 
appropriate, the annual production capacity, and, when the emission 
limit was a concentration-based limit, the annual hours of operation 
reported by each source. Risk results from the inhalation risk 
assessment indicate that the maximum lifetime individual cancer risk 
could increase from 1-in-1 million for actual emissions to as high as 
4-in-1 million for allowable emissions. At the allowable emissions 
level, the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI was 0.06 (for respiratory 
health effects). The total estimated cancer incidence from this source 
category at the allowable emissions level was about 0.03 excess cancer 
cases per year, or 3 excess cases in every 100 years.
    In determining whether risk is acceptable, the EPA considered all 
available health information and risk estimation uncertainty, as 
described above. The results indicate that inhalation cancer risk to 
the individual most exposed under both actual and allowable emissions 
scenarios are considerably less than 100-in-1 million, which is the 
presumptive limit of acceptability. The maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI 
due to inhalation exposures is less than 1 for both actual emissions 
and up to 1 due to allowable emissions. The multipathway analysis 
indicates a cancer risk less than 20-in-1 million from ingestion based 
upon our tier 3 screening analysis, while a refined site-specific 
multipathway analysis indicates that the HI for ingestion exposures is 
less than 1. Finally, the conservative evaluation of acute noncancer 
risk concluded that acute risk is below a level of concern. Taking into 
account this information, we proposed that the risks remaining after 
implementation of the existing MACT standards for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry were acceptable.
    As directed by CAA section 112(f)(2), we also evaluated whether the 
existing MACT standards for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. In addition 
to considering all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the risk acceptability determination, in the ample margin 
of safety analysis we evaluated the cost and feasibility of available 
control technologies and other measures (including the controls, 
measures, and costs reviewed under the technology review) that could be 
applied in this source category to further reduce the risks due to 
emissions of HAP. Our inhalation risk analysis indicated very low risk 
from the facilities in the source category based upon actual emissions 
(1-in-1 million), and just slightly higher risk based upon allowable 
emissions (4-in-1 million). Therefore, very little reduction in 
inhalation risk could be realized regardless of the availability of 
control options.
    The HAP risk drivers contributing to the inhalation maximum 
individual risk (MIR) were gaseous organic HAP: formaldehyde, benzene, 
naphthalene, and acetaldehyde. More than 62 percent of the mass 
emissions of these compounds originated from kiln operations. The first 
technology we considered in our ample margin of safety analysis was a 
regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) used to control organic HAP 
emissions from the kiln exhaust. It is expected that an RTO, when used 
in conjunction with the existing activated carbon injection (ACI), only 
offers an additional 50-percent removal efficiency of organic HAP from 
the kiln exhaust, due to the reduced THC concentration leaving the ACI. 
ACI control devices are currently used by industry, and the addition of 
an RTO as control would include configuring the RTO in series, 
following the ACI. We found that the use of an RTO in series with the 
existing ACI control was not cost effective for this industry, and 
given the small reduction in organic HAP emissions, the addition of an 
RTO would have little effect on the source category risks.
    Other technologies evaluated included the use of an existing ACI 
with the addition of wet scrubbers to help

[[Page 35128]]

control organic HAP, including D/F emissions, from the kiln exhaust. 
For the March 24, 1998, proposal of the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry NESHAP (63 FR 14182), we performed a beyond-the-floor analysis 
and determined that, based on the additional costs and the level of D/F 
emissions reduction achievable, the costs were not justified (63 FR 
14199-14201). In this technology review, we conclude that, as with the 
findings of the 1998 rule, the use of the combination of an ACI system 
in series with a wet scrubber is not cost effective for the industry to 
reduce organic HAP or D/F emissions, and would have little effect on 
the source category risk.
    Although our multipathway screening analysis results did not 
indicate risks of concern from mercury emissions, we also performed an 
evaluation of halogenated carbon injection as a control of mercury 
emissions from the kiln exhaust. In the May 6, 2009, beyond-the-floor 
analysis for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP, we 
determined that, based on the costs of control, and the negligible 
level of mercury emission reduction achieved by the controls, the costs 
of using a halogenated carbon injection system were not justified (74 
FR 21149). As we determined in the 2009 rule, we do not consider the 
use of halogenated carbon injection system to be cost effective for the 
industry to use to reduce mercury emissions, and it would have little 
effect on the low risks identified for this source category.
    Due to the low risk, the minimal risk reductions that could be 
achieved with the various control options that we evaluated, and the 
substantial costs associated with additional control options, we 
proposed that the current standards provide an ample margin of safety 
to protect public health.
    The EPA conducted a screening assessment to examine the potential 
for an adverse environmental effect as required under section 
112(f)(2)(A) of the CAA. Section 112(a)(7) of the CAA defines ``adverse 
environmental effect'' as ``any significant and widespread adverse 
effect, which may reasonably be anticipated, to wildlife, aquatic life, 
or other natural resources, including adverse impacts on populations of 
endangered or threatened species or significant degradation of 
environmental quality over broad areas.'' Based on the results of the 
environmental risk screening assessment, the EPA concluded that there 
was not an adverse environmental effect from the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry source category.
2. How did the risk review change for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry source category?
    We received comments both supporting and opposing the proposed 
residual risk review and our proposed determination that no revisions 
are warranted under CAA section 112(f)(2). After review of these 
comments, we determined that no changes to our risk review are 
necessary. The following section provides a summary of the major 
comments received and our responses to those comments. All comments and 
our specific responses can be found in the document titled ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement 
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses on Proposed Rules,'' which is available in the docket for 
this action.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Generally, comments that were not supportive of the proposed 
determination suggested changes to the underlying risk assessment 
methodology. One comment specific to the source category stated that 
the EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) data from 2014 documented 
1,447.25 tons of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) emitted by the 
source category, yet PAH emission data were not included in Table 3.1-
1, ``Summary of Emissions from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source 
Category and Dose-Response Values Used in the Residual Risk 
Assessment'' (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442-0153), nor were PAH 
quantitatively assessed elsewhere in the risk assessment.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the risk assessment did 
not address PAH. The Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry NESHAP 
regulates organic HAP emissions indirectly with an emissions limit for 
THC. As an alternative, the EPA established an emissions limit for non-
dioxin organic HAP. In developing the MACT standard, the EPA reviewed 
the results of 18 test reports where organic HAP were measured (Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051-3429). Naphthalene was the only PAH 
reported. Based on a review of emissions test data where organic HAP 
were measured simultaneously with THC, the EPA found that, on average, 
organic HAP emissions comprise about 35 percent of the THC. In the test 
data reviewed for the 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 21136), nine specific 
organic HAP were identified and are the pollutants that must be tested 
for when choosing to comply with the organic HAP limit. One of the nine 
organic HAP identified was the PAH naphthalene. No other PAH species 
were present in measurable amounts in the test data reviewed. 
Naphthalene is one of the PAH listed in Table 3.1-1 of the risk 
assessment report. Based on our review of the test data for organic 
HAP, the only PAH emitted above detection limits is naphthalene.
    The EPA also disputes the commenter's claim that PAH emissions, as 
reported in the 2014 NEI, totaled over 1,400 tons. Our inspection of 
the 2014 NEI data for total PAH from the cement sector showed annual 
emissions of 1,449 pounds, not tons. That is less than 1 tpy for total 
PAH, whereas our risk assessment used total naphthalene emissions of 38 
tpy from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category. 
Furthermore, no additional PAH emissions data were submitted to the EPA 
by the commenter or other commenters to support their claims.
    EPA also received comments and information from representatives of 
portland cement manufacturing facilities who, while supportive of EPA's 
residual risk determination, stated that the EPA's risk estimates were 
based on flawed data, such that emission rates were overestimated for 
several pollutants. In response, the EPA acknowledges that our risk 
assessment results for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
source category are dependent on the emission rates used in the 
assessment. If we were to lower emission rates based on more accurate 
data, we expect lower risk estimates. Because the EPA has determined 
that the risk is acceptable, and that the existing standards provide an 
ample margin of safety to protect public health, using the emissions 
data provided by the commenters would potentially reduce risk further 
but would not change our determinations under the risk review. 
Accordingly, we concluded that it was reasonable to not update the risk 
assessment following proposal. We, therefore, finalized the risk 
assessment report and re-submitted it to the docket as ``Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in 
Support of the July 2018 Final Rule.''
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, the Agency 
determined that the risks from the Portland Cement

[[Page 35129]]

Manufacturing Industry source category are acceptable, and the current 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health 
and prevent an adverse environmental effect. Since proposal, our 
determinations regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, 
and adverse environmental effects have not changed. Therefore, we are 
not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, to require additional 
controls pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) based on the residual risk 
review and are readopting the existing emissions standards under CAA 
section 112(f)(2).

B. Technology Review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology 
review and summarized the results of the review in the September 21, 
2017, proposed rule (82 FR 44277). The results of the technology review 
are briefly discussed below, and in more detail in the memorandum, 
``Technology Review for the Portland Cement Production Source 
Category,'' which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442-0189). The technology review focused on 
identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and 
control technologies for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
source category. We reviewed technologies currently available to 
industry, and reviewed previous beyond-the-floor analyses, to determine 
if there had been any developments in existing technologies, or whether 
previous conclusions made by the EPA had changed. Additionally, we 
reviewed new developments in control technologies and determined the 
availability of each control, the costs associated with the 
installation and annual maintenance associated with each control, and 
the effectiveness of each technology in reducing HAP emissions. Based 
on information available to the EPA, the technologies reviewed do not 
provide sufficient reductions in HAP to support changing the standard 
to reflect technological developments (82 FR 44277).
2. How did the technology review change for the Portland Cement 
Manufacturing Industry source category?
    The technology review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing 
Industry source category has not changed since proposal. As proposed, 
the EPA is not making changes to the standards pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of the proposed determination that 
no revisions to the standards are necessary under CAA section 
112(d)(6).
    We also received comments opposing our proposed technology review 
determination. Of the comments received, one commenter specifically 
opposed the technology review determination, and suggested that the EPA 
did not consider or recommend the use of selective catalytic reduction 
technologies (SCR) as mercury control, to control D/F emissions, as THC 
and volatile organic compound control, and as metallic HAP control.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that EPA failed to 
accurately assess SCR as a technology development capable of 
controlling HAP emissions. SCR technology is used to control nitrogen 
oxide (NOx) emissions from gas turbines, internal combustion engines, 
and fossil fuel-fired utility boilers. The use of SCR by the Portland 
Cement Manufacturing Industry source category is, however, problematic 
for various reasons. For example, the chemical composition of raw 
materials used to manufacture portland cement varies by location across 
the United States. This variability in raw materials means that the 
stack gas chemistry also varies across cement plants, often requiring 
plant-specific controls for certain pollutants, such as NOx. The 
presence of pyritic sulfur in raw materials and the resulting 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, for example, requires that higher 
temperatures be maintained at the kiln to avoid the formation of 
ammonium bisulfate salt, which can foul SCR catalysts. Additionally, 
high dust levels and the nature of dusts typical of the portland cement 
manufacturing process also creates difficulties not found in other 
industries where SCR works well for NOx control. In the case of 
mercury, SCR does not directly reduce mercury emissions. Instead, SCR 
oxidizes mercury from its elemental form and the oxidized form can then 
be more easily captured in scrubbers. However, since scrubbers are 
uncommon in the cement industry, SCR would have little impact in 
reducing mercury emissions from cement kilns, unless a scrubber was 
also installed. Regarding D/F emissions control, the primary method of 
D/F control at U.S. cement plants is temperature control, which is 
already a requirement of the current subpart LLL standard. In general, 
no information is available by facilities operating SCR in the U.S. 
relevant to the effectiveness of an SCR for HAP control.
    Review of comments on our technology review did not change our 
proposed determination under CAA section 112(d)(6), These comments and 
our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment 
summary and response document titled, ``National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart LLL) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final 
Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed 
Rules,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we 
determined there were several technologies that have the potential for 
reducing HAP emissions from cement kiln. However, as stated in the 
proposed rule, most of these technologies have not been widely used in 
the United States by the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, so 
source category-specific data on their long-term performance and costs 
are lacking (82 FR 44278). Since proposal, neither the technology 
review nor our determination as a result of the technology review has 
changed, and we are not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, pursuant 
to CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. Other Amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
NESHAP

1. What amendments did we propose?
    In the September 21, 2017, action, we proposed the following 
amendments to the rule to clarify monitoring, testing, and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to correct typographical 
errors:
    <bullet> We proposed to remove the reference to the D/F temperature 
monitoring system in 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9)(vi).
    <bullet> We proposed to correct a provision that requires facility 
owners or operators

[[Page 35130]]

to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln feed rates.
    <bullet> We proposed to clarify that the submittal dates for 
semiannual summary reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 
days after the end of the reporting period consistent with the Agency's 
statement in the October 2016 rule guidance for 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
LLL.
    <bullet> We proposed to resolve conflicting provisions in 40 CFR 
63.1349(b)(8)(x) and 40 CFR 63.1350(l)(3).
    <bullet> We proposed to clarify the requirement in 40 CFR 
63.1349(b)(1)(vi) to state that the provision of the section only 
applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
    <bullet> We proposed that the 1989 TEFs be incorporated into the 
rule to clarify that they are the appropriate factors for calculating 
TEQ.
    <bullet> We proposed to clarify the performance test requirements 
after extended shutdowns of existing kilns.
    <bullet> We proposed to remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and Table 2 that 
contain emission limits that were applicable prior to September 2015.
2. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Several commenters stated they generally supported the September 
21, 2017, proposed rule, with several stating that the proposed 
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, would improve monitoring, 
compliance, and implementation of the rule.
    There were some comments that favored, and some that opposed the 
EPA's proposal to allow facilities 180 days to demonstrate that a kiln 
can comply with the standards when coming out of an extended idle 
period (82 FR 44279). These comments are discussed in the following 
paragraphs.
    One commenter in favor of the proposal requested that the EPA 
clarify that units that were idled during the time when compliance was 
required to be demonstrated, have 180 days after coming out of the idle 
period to demonstrate compliance. To accomplish this, the commenter 
recommended that EPA revise the language of proposed 40 CFR 63.1348(a) 
to state: ``For an affected source subject to this subpart, you must 
demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating 
limits by using the test methods and procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1349 
and 63.7. Any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance 
before the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated 
compliance but was idled during the normal window for the next 
compliance test, must demonstrate compliance within 180 days after 
coming out of the idle period.'' The EPA believes this request provides 
additional clarification to the proposed rule amendment, and has 
revised the rule text to incorporate the suggested change.
    In contrast, the EPA received comments opposed to our decision to 
allow facilities 180 days to demonstrate that a kiln can comply with 
the rule standards when coming out of an extended idle period. The 
commenter took issue with the fact that the regulatory language does 
not make clear whether the 180-day non-compliant period would be just a 
6-month exemption or could be even longer, and requested a clear 
trigger start or end-date, or sources could use this repeatedly after 
any shutdown, simply by citing the new provision. Further, the 
commenter noted that the proposed rule does not define the term ``due 
to being idled,'' nor does it include language to limit the use of this 
exemption. The commenter stated that the EPA's proposal would 
contravene the CAA's requirement for ``enforceable'' emission limits, 
and any cement plant that took advantage of the EPA's proposed 180-day 
compliance exemption would violate its permit requirements. As stated 
by the commenter, a facility that restarted operations after being 
idled and then ran for 6 months without demonstrating compliance could 
not possibly certify that it was ``in compliance'' with permit 
requirements because it would not know if it was in compliance; 
likewise, it could not ``promptly report any deviations'' because it 
would not know if deviations occurred.
    The EPA's response regarding the commenter's concerns regarding the 
180-day exemption is based, in part, on the decision made on March 16, 
1994 (59 FR 12425), and promulgated in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) to allow new 
facilities 180 days to demonstrate initial compliance. The provisions 
of 40 CFR 63.1348(a) are to allow previously idled kilns to reach a 
steady-state condition and schedule and perform compliance testing, as 
provided for new emission sources in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2). It is 
reasonable to expect that a kiln operating the same controls that 
previously resulted in compliance would continue to be in compliance 
when operating the same equipment in the same manner, and the 180-day 
extension is simply a period during which they must complete the 
process of demonstrating compliance. There is no change to the 
facilities obligation to operate in compliance.
    Additionally, it is unreasonable to assume that portland cement 
manufacturing facilities would cease operations of a kiln for a period 
of time in order to circumvent compliance demonstration requirements. 
It is our opinion that this would not be in the best economic interest 
of the facility, by potentially limiting production, and profitability, 
for the sake of circumventing a rule requirement for demonstrating 
compliance.
    Lastly, we believe the recommended amendment to the proposed rule 
suggested by the previous commenter would allow a specific time to 
demonstrate compliance, and therefore, are revising the rule to state, 
``Any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before 
the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated 
compliance but was idled during the normal window for the next 
compliance test, must demonstrate compliance within 180 days after 
coming out of the idle period.''
    These comments and our specific responses to those comments can be 
found in the comment summary and response document titled, ``National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement 
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) Residual Risk and 
Technology Review, Final Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and 
Responses on Proposed Rules,'' which is available in the docket for 
this action.
3. How did the requirements change since proposal?
    Based on the comments received, we are now finalizing the following 
amendments to the rule:
    <bullet> We correct a paragraph in the reporting requirements that 
mistakenly required that affected sources report their 30-operating day 
rolling average for D/F temperature monitoring, including a revision to 
40 CFR 63.1350(g)(4) to say ``record'' instead of ``report.''
    <bullet> We correct a provision that required facility owners or 
operators to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln 
feed rates.
    <bullet> We clarify that the submittal dates for semiannual summary 
reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 days after the end 
of the reporting period.
    <bullet> We resolve conflicting provisions that apply when an 
SO<INF>2</INF> continuous parametric monitoring system is used to 
monitor HCl compliance.
    <bullet> We clarify the requirement in 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(vi) 
only applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
    <bullet> We clarify that the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, D/F 
standards were

[[Page 35131]]

developed based on TEFs developed in 1989, as referenced in the TEQ 
definition section of the rule (40 CFR 63.1341).
    <bullet> We clarify the performance test requirements for affected 
sources that have been idle through one or more periods that required a 
performance test to demonstrate compliance.
    <bullet> We remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and Table 2 that contain 
emission limits that were applicable prior to September 2015.
    <bullet> We revise Equation 18 of the rule to include a missing 
term in the equation.

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

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that the 91 portland cement manufacturing facilities 
currently operating in the United States will be affected by this final 
rule.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We are not establishing new emission limits and are not requiring 
additional controls; therefore, no air quality impacts are expected as 
a result of the final amendments to the rule.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Recent amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 
NESHAP have addressed electronic reporting and changes in policies 
regarding startup, shutdown, and malfunction. Additionally, there are 
no changes to emission standards or add-on controls associated with 
this action. Therefore, the final amendments impose no additional 
costs.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    No economic impacts result from this final action.

E. What are the benefits?

    While the amendments in this final rule do not result in reductions 
in emissions of HAP, this action results in improved monitoring, 
compliance, and implementation of the rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart LLL) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action 
does not change the information collection requirements.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. We estimate that three of the 26 existing 
Portland cement entities are small entities and comprise three plants. 
After considering the economic impacts of this final action on small 
entities, we have concluded that this action will have no net 
regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local, or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct 
compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor 
preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland 
cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, that 
will be subject to this final action. However, the provisions of this 
rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance 
costs on tribal governments since the provisions in this final action 
are clarifying and correcting monitoring and testing requirements and 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. This final action also 
provides clarification for owners and operators on bringing new or 
previously furloughed kilns back on line. Thus, Executive Order 13175 
does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks 
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect 
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629).

[[Page 35132]]

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: July 13, 2018.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Acting Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is amended as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart LLL--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry

0
2. Section 63.1341 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition of ``affirmative defense''; and
0
b. Revising the definitions of ``dioxins and furans (D/F),'' ``in-line 
coal mill,'' and ``TEQ.''
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Dioxins and furans (D/F) means tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and 
octa-chlorinated dibenzo dioxins and furans.
* * * * *
    In-line coal mill means a coal mill using kiln exhaust gases in 
their process. A coal mill with a heat source other than the kiln or a 
coal mill using exhaust gases from the clinker cooler is not an in-line 
coal mill.
* * * * *
    TEQ means the international method of expressing toxicity 
equivalents for dioxins and furans as defined in U.S. EPA, Interim 
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures 
of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFs) and 
1989 Update, March 1989. The 1989 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) used 
to determine the dioxin and furan TEQs are listed in Table 2 to subpart 
LLL of Part 63.
* * * * *


Sec.  63.1343  [Amended]

0
3. Section 63.1343 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and Table 2.

0
4. Section 63.1348 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a sentence after the first sentence in paragraph (a) 
introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(3)(i), the second sentence in paragraph 
(a)(3)(iv), and paragraphs (a)(4)(ii), (a)(7)(ii), (b)(3)(ii), and 
(b)(4);
0
c. Adding a heading to paragraph (b)(5); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(i).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1348  Compliance requirements.

    (a) Initial Performance Test Requirements. * * * Any affected 
source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before the compliance 
date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated compliance but was 
idled during the normal window for the next compliance test, must 
demonstrate compliance within 180 days after coming out of the idle 
period. * * *
* * * * *
    (3) D/F compliance. (i) If you are subject to limitations on D/F 
emissions under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate initial 
compliance with the D/F emissions standards by using the performance 
test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(3). The owner or 
operator of a kiln with an in-line raw mill must demonstrate initial 
compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill 
is operating and the raw mill is not operating. Determine the D/F TEQ 
concentration for each run and calculate the arithmetic average of the 
TEQ concentrations measured for the three runs to determine continuous 
compliance.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * * Compliance is demonstrated if the system is maintained 
within <plus-minus>5 percent accuracy during the performance test 
determined in accordance with the procedures and criteria submitted for 
review in your monitoring plan required in Sec.  63.1350(p).
    (4) * * *
    (ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions Tests. If you elect to demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions limit under Sec.  
63.1343(b) in lieu of the THC emissions limit, you must demonstrate 
compliance with the total organic HAP emissions standards by using the 
performance test methods and procedures in Sec.  63.1349(b)(7).
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) Perform required emission monitoring and testing of the 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 
limit per each pollutant as listed in Sec.  63.1343(b).
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Bag Leak Detection System (BLDS). If you install a BLDS on a 
raw mill or finish mill in lieu of conducting the daily visible 
emissions testing, you must demonstrate compliance using a BLDS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the requirements 
of Sec.  63.1350(f)(4)(ii).
    (4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject to a D/F emissions 
limitation under Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance 
using a continuous monitoring system (CMS) that is installed, operated 
and maintained to record the temperature of specified gas streams in 
accordance with the requirements of Sec.  63.1350(g).
    (5) Activated Carbon Injection Compliance. (i) If you use activated 
carbon injection to comply with the D/F emissions limitation under 
Sec.  63.1343(b), you must demonstrate compliance using a CMS that is 
installed, operated, and maintained to record the rate of activated 
carbon injection in accordance with the requirements Sec.  
63.1350(h)(1).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.1349 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1)(vi), (b)(3)(iv), (b)(4)(i), (b)(6)(i)(A), 
(b)(7)(viii)(A), (b)(8)(vi), and (b)(8)(vii)(B); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * *
    (vi) For each performance test, conduct at least three separate 
test runs under the conditions that exist when the affected source is 
operating at the level reasonably expected to occur. Conduct each test 
run to collect a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm for determining 
compliance with a new source limit and 1 dscm for determining 
compliance with an existing source limit. Calculate the time weighted 
average of the results from three

[[Page 35133]]

consecutive runs, including applicable sources as required by paragraph 
(b)(1)(viii) of this section, to determine compliance. You need not 
determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers ``back 
half'' of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to 
demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This 
shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a 
determination of the ``back half'' for other purposes. For kilns with 
inline raw mills, testing must be conducted while the raw mill is on 
and while the raw mill is off. If the exhaust streams of a kiln with an 
inline raw mill and a clinker cooler are comingled, then the comingled 
exhaust stream must be tested with the raw mill on and the raw mill 
off.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The run average temperature must be calculated for each run, 
and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and 
included in the performance test report and will determine the 
applicable temperature limit in accordance with Sec.  63.1346(b).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must 
operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.1350(i). 
For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance 
evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 to 60 ppmvw 
and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of 
this chapter.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i)(A) If the 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 that meets the 
requirements Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills, 
testing must be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off 
conditions.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.102

Where:

x = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.
X<INF>i</INF> = The THC CEMS data points for all three test runs i.
y = The organic HAP average values in ppmvw.
Y<INF>i</INF> = The organic HAP concentrations for all three test 
runs i.
n = The number of data points.

* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/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 of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the 
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the 
SO<INF>2</INF> levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off 
compliance testing with Equation 17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.103

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO<INF>2</INF>, ppmvw.
y = Average SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS value during mill on operations, 
ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a 
decimal.
x = Average SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS value during mill off operations, 
ppmvw.
1-t = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a 
decimal.

    (vii) * * *
    (B) Determine your SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS instrument average ppm, and 
the average of your corresponding three HCl compliance test runs, using 
Equation 18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.104

Where:

x = The SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS average values in ppmvw.
X<INF>1</INF> = The SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS data points for the three 
runs constituting the performance test.
y = The HCl average values in ppmvw.
Y<INF>1</INF> = The HCl emission concentration expressed as ppmv 
corrected to 7 percent oxygen for the three runs constituting the 
performance test.
n = The number of data points.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 63.1350 is amended by revising paragraphs (g) introductory 
text, (g)(4), (h)(2)(ii), (j), (k)(2) introductory text, (k)(2)(ii) and 
(iii), (k)(5)(ii), (l)(1) introductory text, and (l)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) D/F monitoring requirements. If you are subject to an emissions 
limitation on D/F emissions, you must comply with the monitoring 
requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (5) and (m)(1) through (4) of 
this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with the D/F 
emissions standard. You must also develop an emissions monitoring plan 
in accordance with paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Every hour, record the calculated rolling three-hour average 
temperature using the average of 180 successive one-minute average 
temperatures. See Sec.  63.1349(b)(3).
* * * * *

[[Page 35134]]

    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Each hour, calculate the 3-hour rolling average of the 
selected parameter value for the previous 3 hours of process operation 
using all of the one-minute data available (i.e., the CMS is not out-
of-control).
* * * * *
    (j) Total organic HAP monitoring requirements. If you are complying 
with the total organic HAP emissions limits, you must continuously 
monitor THC according to paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section or 
in accordance with Performance Specification 8 or Performance 
Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply 
with all of the requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in 
the general provisions, subpart A of this part. You must operate and 
maintain each CEMS according to the quality assurance requirements in 
Procedure 1 of appendix F in part 60 of this chapter. You must also 
develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs 
(p)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (k) * * *
    (2) In order to quality assure data measured above the span value, 
you must use one of the four options in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) through 
(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (ii) Quality assure any data above the span value by proving 
instrument linearity beyond the span value established in paragraph 
(k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Conduct a weekly 
``above span linearity'' calibration challenge of the monitoring system 
using a reference gas with a certified value greater than your highest 
expected hourly concentration or greater than 75 percent of the highest 
measured hourly concentration. The ``above span'' reference gas must 
meet the requirements of PS 12A, Section 7.1 and must be introduced to 
the measurement system at the probe. Record and report the results of 
this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The ``above span 
linearity'' challenge is successful if the value measured by the Hg 
CEMS falls within 10 percent of the certified value of the reference 
gas. If the value measured by the Hg CEMS during the above span 
linearity challenge exceeds <plus-minus>10 percent of the certified 
value of the reference gas, the monitoring system must be evaluated and 
repaired and a new ``above span linearity'' challenge met before 
returning the Hg CEMS to service, or data above span from the Hg CEMS 
must be subject to the quality assurance procedures established in 
paragraph (k)(2)(iii) of this section. In this manner all hourly 
average values exceeding the span value measured by the Hg CEMS during 
the week following the above span linearity challenge when the CEMS 
response exceeds <plus-minus>20 percent of the certified value of the 
reference gas must be normalized using Equation 22.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.105

    (iii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in 
paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any 
time two consecutive 1-hour average measured concentrations of Hg 
exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after, 
introduce a higher, ``above span'' Hg reference gas standard to the Hg 
CEMS. The ``above span'' reference gas must meet the requirements of PS 
12A, Section 7.1, must target a concentration level between 50 and 150 
percent of the highest expected hourly concentration measured during 
the period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the 
probe. While this target represents a desired concentration range that 
is not always achievable in practice, it is expected that the intent to 
meet this range is demonstrated by the value of the reference gas. 
Expected values may include ``above span'' calibrations done before or 
after the above span measurement period. Record and report the results 
of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The ``above 
span'' calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS 
is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If 
the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified 
value of the reference gas, then you must normalize 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 on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown 
in Equation 22. Only one ``above span'' calibration is needed per 24-
hour period.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury 
in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the 
mercury hourly emissions rate and the exhaust gas flow rate to 
calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by 
operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance 
Specification (PS) 15 or PS 18 of appendix B to part 60 of this 
chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any other 
performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this 
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 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter 
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure 
1 must be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of 
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you choose to install and operate 
an HCl CEMS in accordance with PS 18, you must operate, maintain, and 
quality assure the HCl CEMS using the associated Procedure 6 of 
appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. For any performance 
specification that you use, you must use Method 321 of appendix A to 
this part as the reference test method for conducting relative accuracy 
testing. The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs 
(l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those 
installed and certified under PS 15 or PS 18.
* * * * *
    (3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray 
tower, and you choose to monitor SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, monitor 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions continuously according to the requirements of 
Sec.  60.63(e) and (f) of this chapter. If SO<INF>2</INF> levels 
increase above the 30-day rolling average SO<INF>2</INF> operating 
limit established during your performance test by 10 percent or more, 
you must:
    (i) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after you exceed 
the established SO<INF>2</INF> value conduct an inspection and take 
corrective action to return the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to within the 
operating limit; and
    (ii) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next 
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions 
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl

[[Page 35135]]

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS 
operating limit.
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1354 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text and (b)(9)(vi);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(viii) as paragraph (b)(11)(i) 
introductory text and revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(11)(i);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(11)(i)(A) through (C);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(ix) as paragraph (b)(11)(ii);
0
e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(x) as paragraph (b)(12) and revising 
newly redesignated paragraph (b)(12); and
0
f. Revising paragraphs (b)(10) and (c).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  63.1354  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) The owner or operator shall submit a summary report 
semiannually within 60 days of the reporting period to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI 
for this subpart. Instead of using the electronic report in CEDRI for 
this subpart, you may submit an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI 
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri), once the XML 
schema is available. If the reporting form specific to this subpart is 
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must 
submit the report the Administrator at the appropriate address listed 
in Sec.  63.13. You must begin submitting reports via CEDRI no later 
than 90 days after the form becomes available in CEDRI. The excess 
emissions and summary reports must be submitted no later than 60 days 
after the end of the reporting period, regardless of the method in 
which the reports are submitted. The report must contain the 
information specified in Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(vi). In addition, the 
summary report shall include:
* * * * *
    (vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS, SO<INF>2</INF> CEMS, 
or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the 
reporting periods, you must report all of the calculated 30-operating 
day rolling average values derived from the CPMS, CEMS, CMS, or Hg 
sorbent trap monitoring systems.
* * * * *
    (10) If the total continuous monitoring system downtime for any CEM 
or any CMS for the reporting period is 10 percent or greater of the 
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator 
shall submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system 
performance report along with the summary report.
    (11)(i) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(11)(i)(A) and (B) of this section no later than 60 days following 
the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by a 
responsible official.
    (A) The initial performance test data as recorded under Sec.  
63.1349(a).
    (B) The values for the site-specific operating limits or parameters 
established pursuant to Sec.  63.1349(b)(1), (3), (6), (7), and (8), as 
applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how 
the operating parameters were established during the initial 
performance test.
    (C) As of December 31, 2011, and within 60 days after the date of 
completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in Sec.  
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, to the EPA by successfully 
submitting the data electronically via CEDRI and by using the 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert). For any 
performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on 
the ERT website, you must submit the results of the performance 
evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 
Sec.  63.13.
* * * * *
    (12) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of 
this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  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 of reports subject to paragraphs (b)(9) 
introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of this section in paper format.
    (c) For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused 
by a malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in 
the semi-annual compliance report required by Sec.  63.1354(b)(9). The 
report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each 
event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number 
of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event 
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the amount of each 
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the 
source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used 
to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description 
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an 
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  
63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

0
8. Section 63.1355 is amended by revising paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates 
according to the clinker production monitoring requirements in Sec.  
63.1350(d).
* * * * *

0
9. Table 1 to subpart LLL of part 63 is amended by adding the entry 
``63.10(e)(3)(v)'' in alphanumeric order to read as follows:

                     Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Requirement          Applies to subpart LLL        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(e)(3)(v).....................  Due Dates for Excess         ......................  Sec.   63.1354(b)(9)
                                      Emissions and No CMS                                 specifies due date.
                                      Performance Reports.
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 35136]]


0
10. Add table 2 to subpart LLL of part 63 to read as follows:

Table 2 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--1989 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Dioxins/Furans                          TEFs 1989
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD............................................               1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD.........................................             0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD.....................................            0.01
OCDD....................................................           0.001
2,3,7,8-TCDF............................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF.........................................            0.05
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF.........................................             0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF.......................................             0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF.....................................            0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF.....................................            0.01
OCDF....................................................           0.001
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-15718 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>