35122 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of § 23.863(a) through (d), 

amendment 23–34. 

(6) No corrosive fluids or gases that 

may escape from any rechargeable 

lithium battery, may damage 

surrounding structure or any adjacent 

systems, equipment, electrical wiring, or 

the airplane in such a way as to cause 

a major or more severe failure condition, 

in accordance with § 23.1309, 

amendment 23–62, and applicable 

regulatory guidance. 

(7) Each rechargeable lithium battery 

installation must have provisions to 

prevent any hazardous effect on 

structure or essential systems that may 

be caused by the maximum amount of 

heat the battery can generate during a 

short circuit of the battery or of its 

individual cells. 

(8) Rechargeable lithium battery 

installations must have a system to 

automatically control the charging rate 

of the battery to prevent battery 

overheating and overcharging, and 

either: 

i. A battery temperature sensing and 

over-temperature warning system with a 

means for automatically disconnecting 

the battery from its charging source in 

the event of an over-temperature 

condition; or 

ii. A battery failure sensing and 

warning system with a means for 

automatically disconnecting the battery 

from its charging source in the event of 

battery failure. 

(9) Any rechargeable lithium battery 

installation, the function of which is 

required for safe operation of the 

aircraft, must incorporate a monitoring 

and warning feature that will provide an 

indication to the appropriate flight 

crewmembers whenever the state of 

charge of the batteries has fallen below 

levels considered acceptable for 

dispatch of the aircraft. 

Note 1 to paragraph (9): Reference 

§ 23.1353(h) for dispatch consideration. 

(10) The Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness (ICA) required by 

§ 23.1529 must contain maintenance 

requirements to assure that the battery 

has been sufficiently charged at 

appropriate intervals specified by the 

battery manufacturer and the equipment 

manufacturer that contain the 

rechargeable lithium battery or 

rechargeable lithium battery system. 

The lithium rechargeable batteries and 

lithium rechargeable battery systems 

must not degrade below specified 

ampere-hour levels sufficient to power 

the aircraft system. The ICA must also 

contain procedures for the maintenance 

of replacement batteries to prevent the 

installation of batteries that have 

degraded charge retention ability or 

other damage due to prolonged storage 

at a low state of charge. Replacement 

batteries must be of the same 

manufacturer and part number as 

approved by the FAA. 

Note 2 to paragraph (10): Maintenance 

requirements include procedures that check 

battery capacity, charge degradation at 

manufacturers recommended inspection 

intervals, and replace batteries at 

manufacturer’s recommended replacement 

schedule/time to prevent age-related 

degradation. 

Note 3 to paragraph (10): The term 

‘‘sufficiently charged’’ means that the battery 

must retain enough charge, expressed in 

ampere-hours, to ensure that the battery cells 

will not be damaged. A battery cell may be 

damaged by low charge (i.e., below certain 

level), resulting in a reduction in the ability 

to charge and retain a full charge. This 

reduction would be greater than the 

reduction that may result from normal 

operational degradation. 

Note 4 to paragraph (10): Replacement 

battery in spares storage may be subject to 

prolonged storage at a low state of charge. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on July 19, 

2018. 

Pat Mullen, 

Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15912 Filed 7–24–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

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: storey.brian@epa.gov. 

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: hirtz.james@epa.gov. 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: 

ayres.sara@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and 

Abbreviations. We use multiple 

acronyms and terms in this preamble. 

While this list may not be exhaustive, to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 

SO2 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 NAICS1 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. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35124 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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. 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-airpollution/portland-cementmanufacturing-industry-nationalemission-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 bestperforming 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. 

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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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

If your source is a 

(an): 

And the operating 

mode is: And it is located at a: Your emissions limits are: And the units of the emissions limit are: 

The oxygen 

correction 

factor is: 

1. Existing kiln ........... Normal operation ...... Major or area source PM 1 0.07 ................................ Pounds (lb)/ton clinker.NA. 

................................... ................................... D/F 2 0.2 ................................. Nanograms/dry 

standard cubic meters (ng/dscm) 

(TEQ).

7 percent. 

................................... ................................... Mercury 55 ............................. lb/million (MM) tons 

clinker.

NA. 

................................... ................................... THC 3 4 24 ............................... Parts per million, volumetric dry 

(ppmvd).

7 percent. 

2. Existing kiln ........... Normal operation ...... Major source ............. HCl 3 ...................................... ppmvd ....................... 7 percent. 

3. Existing kiln ........... Startup and shutdown.Major or area source Work practice standards 

(63.1346(g)).

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

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 standards 

(63.1346(g)).

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

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 standards 

(63.1348(b)(9)).

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

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 standards 

(63.1348(b)(9)).

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

11. Existing or new 

raw material dryer.

Normal operation ...... Major or area source THC 3 4 24 ............................... ppmvd ....................... NA. 

12. Existing or new 

raw material dryer.

Startup and shutdown.Major or area source Work practice standards 

(63.1348(b)(9)).

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

13. Existing or new 

raw or finish mill.

All operating modes Major source ............. Opacity 10 .............................. percent ...................... NA. 

1The 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. 

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


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35126 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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: 

• 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. 

• We correct a provision that required 

facility owners or operators to keep 

records of both daily clinker production 

and kiln feed rates. 

• 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. 

• We resolve conflicting provisions 

that apply when a sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

continuous parametric monitoring 

system is used to monitor HCl 

compliance. 

• We clarify that the requirement in 

40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(vi) only applies to 

kilns with inline raw mills. 

• 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). 

• 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. 

• We remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and 

Table 2 that contain emission limits that 

were applicable prior to September 

2015. 

• We revise Equation 18 of the rule to 

include a missing term in the equation. 

• 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). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 35127 

TABLE 3—INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY SOURCE

CATEGORY

Cancer MIR (in-1 million) Cancer 

incidence 

(cases per 

year) 1

Population 

with risk of 

1-in-1 

million or 

greater 1

Population 

with risk of 

10-in-1 

million or 

greater 1

Max chronic 

noncancer HI 

Based on actual emissions Based on allowable emissions 

Source Category ..................... 1 (formaldehyde, benzene) ..... 4 (formaldehyde, benzene) .... 0.01 130 0 HI < 1 (Actuals and 

Allowables). 

Whole Facility .......................... 70 (arsenic and chromium VI) ................................................. 0.02 20,000 690 HI = 1 (Actuals). 

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 sitespecific 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 sitespecific 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-in1 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-in1 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35128 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nondioxin 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 fuelfired 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 SO2

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: 

• We proposed to remove the 

reference to the D/F temperature 

monitoring system in 40 CFR 

63.1354(b)(9)(vi). 

• We proposed to correct a provision 

that requires facility owners or operators 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35130 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

to keep records of both daily clinker 

production and kiln feed rates. 

• 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. 

• We proposed to resolve conflicting 

provisions in 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(8)(x) 

and 40 CFR 63.1350(l)(3). 

• 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. 

• We proposed that the 1989 TEFs be 

incorporated into the rule to clarify that 

they are the appropriate factors for 

calculating TEQ. 

• We proposed to clarify the 

performance test requirements after 

extended shutdowns of existing kilns. 

• 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 §§ 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 enddate, 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: 

• 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.’’ 

• We correct a provision that required 

facility owners or operators to keep 

records of both daily clinker production 

and kiln feed rates. 

• 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. 

• We resolve conflicting provisions 

that apply when an SO2 continuous 

parametric monitoring system is used to 

monitor HCl compliance. 

• We clarify the requirement in 40 

CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(vi) only applies to 

kilns with inline raw mills. 

• We clarify that the 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart LLL, D/F standards were 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 35131 

developed based on TEFs developed in 

1989, as referenced in the TEQ 

definition section of the rule (40 CFR 

63.1341). 

• 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. 

• We remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and 

Table 2 that contain emission limits that 

were applicable prior to September 

2015. 

• 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/lawsregulations/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, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous 

peoples, as specified in Executive Order 

12898 (59 FR 7629). 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35132 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 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 

■ 2. Section 63.1341 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the definition of 

‘‘affirmative defense’’; and 

■ b. Revising the definitions of ‘‘dioxins 

and furans (D/F),’’ ‘‘in-line coal mill,’’ 

and ‘‘TEQ.’’ 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 63.1341 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Dioxins and furans (D/F) means 

tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, and octachlorinated 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-pdioxins 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 63.1343 [Amended] 

■ 3. Section 63.1343 is amended by 

removing paragraph (d) and Table 2. 

■ 4. Section 63.1348 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding a sentence after the first 

sentence in paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ 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); 

■ c. Adding a heading to paragraph 

(b)(5); and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(5)(i). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 63.1343(b), you must 

demonstrate initial compliance with the 

D/F emissions standards by using the 

performance test methods and 

procedures in § 63.1349(b)(3). The 

owner or operator of a kiln with an inline 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 ±5 percent accuracy 

during the performance test determined 

in accordance with the procedures and 

criteria submitted for review in your 

monitoring plan required in 

§ 63.1350(p). 

(4) * * * 

(ii) Total Organic HAP Emissions 

Tests. If you elect to demonstrate 

compliance with the total organic HAP 

emissions limit under § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.1350(f)(4)(ii). 

(4) D/F Compliance. If you are subject 

to a D/F emissions limitation under 

§ 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 § 63.1350(g). 

(5) Activated Carbon Injection 

Compliance. (i) If you use activated 

carbon injection to comply with the D/ 

F emissions limitation under 

§ 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 § 63.1350(h)(1). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 63.1349 is amended by: 

■ 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 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

Where: 

x ̄ = The THC CEMS average values in 

ppmvw. 

Xi = The THC CEMS data points for all three 

test runs i. 

y ̄ = The organic HAP average values in 

ppmvw. 

Yi = 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 SO2 levels 

measured during raw mill on and raw 

mill off compliance testing with 

Equation 17. 

Where: 

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw. 

y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on 

operations, ppmvw. 

t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, 

expressed as a decimal. 

x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off 

operations, ppmvw. 

1-t = Percentage of operating time with mill 

off, expressed as a decimal. 

(vii) * * * 

(B) Determine your SO2 CEMS 

instrument average ppm, and the 

average of your corresponding three HCl 

compliance test runs, using Equation 18. 

Where: 

x ̄ = The SO2 CEMS average values in ppmvw. 

X1 = The SO2 CEMS data points for the three 

runs constituting the performance test. 

y ̄ = The HCl average values in ppmvw. 

Y1 = 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 

§ 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 oneminute average temperatures. See 

§ 63.1349(b)(3). 

* * * * * 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULESER25JY18.102</GPH> ER25JY18.103</GPH> ER25JY18.104</GPH>
35134 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 outof-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 ±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 ±20 percent 

of the certified value of the reference gas 

must be normalized using Equation 22. 

(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 SO2 emissions, 

monitor SO2 emissions continuously 

according to the requirements of 

§ 60.63(e) and (f) of this chapter. If SO2

levels increase above the 30-day rolling 

average SO2 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 SO2 value conduct an 

inspection and take corrective action to 

return the SO2 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 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULESER25JY18.105</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 35135 

emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the SO2 CEMS operating limit. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 63.1354 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(9) 

introductory text and (b)(9)(vi); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(viii) 

as paragraph (b)(11)(i) introductory text 

and revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(11)(i); 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(11)(i)(A) 

through (C); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(ix) 

as paragraph (b)(11)(ii); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraph (b)(9)(x) as 

paragraph (b)(12) and revising newly 

redesignated paragraph (b)(12); and 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (b)(10) and (c). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 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/electronicreporting-air-emissions/complianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri), 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 § 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 

§ 63.10(e)(3)(vi). In addition, the 

summary report shall include: 

* * * * * 

(vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and 

THC CEMS, SO2 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 § 63.1349(a). 

(B) The values for the site-specific 

operating limits or parameters 

established pursuant to § 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 § 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-airemissions/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 § 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 § 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 semiannual compliance report required by 

§ 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 

§ 63.1348(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

■ 8. Section 63.1355 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) You must keep records of the daily 

clinker production rates according to 

the clinker production monitoring 

requirements in § 63.1350(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 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 Emissions and No CMS Performance Reports.

............................................ § 63.1354(b)(9) specifies 

due date. 

*******


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
35136 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0548; FRL–9981–17– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AU13 

Additional Air Quality Designations for 

the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards—San Antonio, 

Texas Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is establishing initial air 

quality designations for the eight 

counties in the San Antonio-New 

Braunfels, Texas Core Based Statistical 

Area (CBSA) for the 2015 primary and 

secondary national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The EPA 

is designating Bexar County as the San 

Antonio, Texas nonattainment area and 

the remaining seven counties as 

attainment/unclassifiable areas. The San 

Antonio, Texas nonattainment area is 

also being classified as Marginal by 

operation of law according to the 

severity of its air quality problem. Of the 

five classification categories, Marginal 

nonattainment areas have ozone levels 

that are closest to the ozone NAAQS at 

the time of designation. This action 

completes the initial designations for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The EPA 

designated all other areas of the country 

for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in actions 

signed by the Administrator on 

November 6, 2017, and April 30, 2018. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

September 24, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0548. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 in the docket or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Office 

of Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center is (202) 566–1742. 

In addition, the EPA has established 

a website for rulemakings for the initial 

area designations for the 2015 ozone 

NAAQS at https://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations. The website includes the 

EPA’s final designations, as well as 

designation recommendation letters 

from states and tribes, the EPA’s 120- 

letters notifying the states whether the 

EPA intends to modify the state’s 

recommendation, technical support 

documents, responses to comments and 

other related technical information. 

The public may also inspect this rule 

and state-specific technical support 

information in hard copy at EPA Region 

6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Denise Scott, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code C539–01, Research Triangle Park, 

NC 27711, phone number (919) 541– 

4280, email: scott.denise@epa.gov or 

Carrie Paige, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6, Mail Code: 

6MM–AB, 445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 

75202, telephone (214) 665–6521, email: 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

The following is an outline of the 

preamble. 

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is ozone and how is it formed? 

IV. What are the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the 

health and welfare concerns they 

address? 

V. What are the CAA requirements for air 

quality designations? 

VI. What is the chronology for this 

designations rule and what guidance did 

the EPA provide? 

VII. What air quality data has the EPA used 

to designate the counties in the San 

Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas CBSA for 

the 2015 ozone NAAQS? 

VIII. What are the ozone air quality 

classifications? 

IX. Where can I find information forming the 

basis for this rule and exchanges 

between the EPA and the state? 

X. Environmental Justice Concerns 

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulations 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 

and Safety Risks 

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions 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) 

M. Judicial Review 

I. Preamble Glossary of Terms and 

Acronyms 

The following are abbreviations of 

terms used in the preamble. 

APA Administrative Procedure Act 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CBSA Core Based Statistical Area 

DC District of Columbia 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NOX Nitrogen Oxides 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

PPM Parts per million 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

UMRA Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 

1995 

TAR Tribal Authority Rule 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES