9088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015; FRL–5948.1– 

02–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AV59 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 

Manufacturing Plants Amendments 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This action supplements our 

proposed amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing 

Plants (Lime Manufacturing NESHAP) 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 5, 2023. In that action, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposed hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions standards for the following 

pollutants: hydrogen chloride (HCl), 

mercury, total hydrocarbon (THC) as a 

surrogate for organic HAP, and dioxin/ 

furans (D/F). The EPA is proposing 

revisions to the proposed emission 

limits for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, 

and D/F based on additional 

information gathered since the 

publication of the January 5, 2023, 

proposed rule amendments. We solicit 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposed action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2024. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before March 11, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action 

contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Mr. Brian 

Storey, Mail Drop: D143–04, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, RTP, 

North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number: (919) 541–1103 and email 

address: storey.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Docket. The EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015. All 

submissions received must include the 

Docket ID No. for this rulemaking. 

Comments received may be posted 

without change to https://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

https://www.regulations.gov/. Although 

listed, some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 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. With the 

exception of such material, publicly 

available docket materials are available 

electronically in Regulations.gov. 

Instructions. Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0015. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at https:// 

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/ any information 

that you consider to be CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. This type of 

information should be submitted as 

discussed below. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the Web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

The https://www.regulations.gov/ 

website allows you to submit your 

comment anonymously, which means 

the EPA will not know your identity or 

contact information unless you provide 

it in the body of your comment. If you 

send an email comment directly to the 

EPA without going through https://

www.regulations.gov/, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

digital storage media you submit. If the 

EPA cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should not include 

special characters or any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at https:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through https://www.regulations.gov/. 

Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on any digital 

storage media that you mail to the EPA, 

note the docket ID, mark the outside of 

the digital storage media as CBI, and 

identify electronically within the digital 

storage media the specific information 

that is claimed as CBI. In addition to 

one complete version of the comments 

that includes information claimed as 

CBI, you must submit a copy of the 

comments that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI directly to 

the public docket through the 

procedures outlined in Instructions 

above. If you submit any digital storage 

media that does not contain CBI, mark 

the outside of the digital storage media 

clearly that it does not contain CBI and 

note the docket ID. Information not 

marked as CBI will be included in the 

public docket and the EPA’s electronic 

public docket without prior notice. 

Information marked as CBI will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. 

Our preferred method to receive CBI 

is for it to be transmitted electronically 

using email attachments, File Transfer 

Protocol (FTP), or other online file 

sharing services (e.g., Dropbox, 

OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic 

submissions must be transmitted 

directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the 

email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as 

described above, should include clear 

CBI markings and note the docket ID. If 

assistance is needed with submitting 

large electronic files that exceed the file 

size limit for email attachments, and if 

you do not have your own file sharing 

service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov 

to request a file transfer link. If sending 

CBI information through the postal 

service, please send it to the following 

address: OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2020–0430. The mailed CBI 

material should be double wrapped and 

clearly marked. Any CBI markings 

should not show through the outer 

envelope. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9089 

Preamble acronyms and 

abbreviations. Throughout this 

document the use of ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or 

‘‘our’’ is intended to refer to the EPA. 

We use multiple acronyms and terms in 

this preamble. While this list may not be 

exhaustive, to ease the reading of this 

preamble and for reference purposes, 

the EPA defines the following terms and 

acronyms here: 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DB dead burned dolomitic lime 

D/F dioxin/furans 

DL dolomitic lime 

DSI dry sorbent injection 

EJ environmental justice 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ESP electrostatic precipitator 

FF fabric filter 

FR Federal Register 

g/dscm grams of pollutant per dry standard 

cubic meter of air 

HAP hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HBEL health-based emission limit 

HCl hydrogen chloride 

HQ hazard quotient 

IQV intra-quarry variability 

lb/hr pounds of pollutant per hour 

lb/MMton pounds of pollutant per million 

tons of lime produced at the kiln 

lb/tsf pounds of pollutant per ton of stone 

feed 

MACT maximum achievable control 

technology 

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 

PM particulate matter 

ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry 

PR preheater rotary kiln 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PSH process stone handling 

QL quick lime 

RDL representative detection level 

REL reference exposure limit 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RfC non-cancer reference concentration 

RTR residual risk and technology review 

SR straight rotary kiln 

SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

TEF toxicity equivalence factors 

THC total hydrocarbons 

tpy tons of pollutant per year 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

UPL upper predictive limit 

VK vertical kiln 

VCS voluntary consensus standards 

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?

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this

action?

B. What is this source category and how

does the current NESHAP regulate its

HAP emissions?

C. What changes did we propose for the

lime manufacturing source category in

our January 5, 2023, proposal?

III. Analytical Results and Proposed

Decisions

A. What revisions are we proposing to the

hydrogen chloride emission standards?

B. What revisions are we proposing to the

mercury emission standards?

C. What revisions are we proposing to the

organic HAP emission standards?

D. What revisions are we proposing to the

dioxin/furan emission standards?

E. What other actions are we proposing,

and what is the rationale for those

actions?

F. What revisions are we proposing to the

performance testing, monitoring, and

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements?

G. What revisions to the compliance dates

are we proposing?

IV. 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?

F. What analysis of environmental justice

did we conduct?

G. What analysis of children’s

environmental health did we conduct?

V. Request for Comments

VI. Submitting Data Corrections

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and 13563 Improving

Regulation and Regulatory Review

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR

Part 51

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions

To Address Environmental Justice in

Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations and Executive Order 14096:

Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to

Environmental Justice for All

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Table 1 of this preamble lists the

NESHAP and associated regulated 

industrial source categories that are the 

subject of this supplemental proposal. 

Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, 

but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding the entities that the proposed 

rule is likely to affect. The standards, if 

promulgated, will be directly applicable 

to the affected sources. Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal government entities 

would not be affected by this rule. As 

defined in the Initial List of Categories 

of Sources Under Section 112(c)(1) of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

(see 57 FR 31576; July 16, 1992) and 

Documentation for Developing the 

Initial Source Category List, Final 

Report (see EPA–450/3–91–030; July 

1992), the Lime Manufacturing source 

category is ‘‘any facility engaged in 

producing high calcium lime, dolomitic 

lime, and dead-burned dolomite.’’ 

However, lime manufacturing plants 

located at pulp and paper mills or at 

beet sugar factories are not included in 

the source category (69 FR 394, 397, 

January 5, 2004). 

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED ACTION

Source category and NESHAP NAICS code 1

Lime Manufacturing .................................................................................. 32741, 33111, 3314, 327125.

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

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 action 

is available on the internet. Following 

signature by the EPA Administrator, the 

EPA will post a copy of this 

supplemental proposal at https://

www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-airpollution/lime-manufacturing-plantsnational-emission-standards-hazardous. 

Following publication in the Federal 

Register, the EPA will post the Federal 

Register version of this supplemental 

proposal rule and key technical 

documents at this same website. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 88 FR 805 (Jan. 5, 2023). 2 66 FR 3180, January 12, 2001. 

II. Background 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this action? 

On January 5, 2023, the EPA proposed 

to amend the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

for Lime Manufacturing Plants (Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP), to set 

emission standards for four previously 

unregulated pollutants.1 This 

supplemental proposal seeks comment 

on revisions to the proposed emission 

limits for HCl, mercury, organic HAP, 

and D/F based on information received 

from public commenters and other 

sources of information, including the 

small business review panel. 

In Louisiana Environmental Action 

Network v. EPA (LEAN), 955 F.3d 1088 

(D.C. Cir. 2020) the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (D.C. Circuit) held that the EPA 

has an obligation to address unregulated 

emissions from a source category in the 

8-year review. To meet this obligation, 

the EPA issued the January 5, 2023, 

proposed rule to address unregulated 

emissions of HAP from the lime 

manufacturing source category. The 

proposed amendments defined the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) standard for 

hydrogen chloride (HCl), mercury, total 

hydrocarbon (THC) as a surrogate for 

organic HAP, and dioxin/furans (D/F) 

within the lime manufacturing source 

category pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) sections 112(d)(2) and (3). This 

proposal supplements the January 5, 

2023, proposed rule amendments. 

B. What is this source category and how 

does the current NESHAP regulate its 

HAP emissions? 

The EPA promulgated the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP on January 5, 

2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are 

codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAAA. The lime manufacturing 

industry consists of facilities that use a 

lime kiln to produce lime product from 

limestone by calcination. The source 

category covered by this MACT 

standard currently includes 34 facilities. 

As promulgated in 2004, the current 

Lime Manufacturing NESHAP regulates 

HAP emissions from all new and 

existing lime manufacturing plants that 

are major sources, co-located with major 

sources, or are part of major sources. A 

lime manufacturing plant is defined as 

any plant which uses a lime kiln to 

produce lime product from limestone or 

other calcareous material by calcination. 

The NESHAP specifically excludes lime 

kilns that use only calcium carbonate 

waste sludge from water softening 

processes as the feedstock. In addition, 

lime manufacturing plants located at 

pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar 

factories are not subject to the NESHAP. 

Lime manufacturing operations at pulp 

and paper mills are subject to the 

NESHAP for combustion sources at 

kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp and paper 

mills.2 Lime manufacturing operations 

at beet sugar processing plants are not 

subject to the Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP because beet sugar lime kiln 

exhaust is typically routed through a 

series of gas washers to clean the 

exhaust gas prior to process use. Other 

lime manufacturing plants that are part 

of multiple operations, such as (but not 

limited to) those at steel mills and 

magnesia production facilities, are 

subject to the Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP. 

The current Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP defines the affected source as 

each lime kiln and its associated cooler 

and each individual processed stone 

handling (PSH) operations system. The 

PSH operations system includes all 

equipment associated with PSH 

operations beginning at the process 

stone storage bin(s) or open storage 

pile(s) and ending where the process 

stone is fed into the kiln. It includes 

man-made process stone storage bins 

(but not open process stone storage 

piles), conveying system transfer points, 

bulk loading or unloading systems, 

screening operations, surge bins, bucket 

elevators, and belt conveyors. 

The current Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP established particulate matter 

(PM) emission limits for lime kilns, 

coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. 

The NESHAP also established opacity 

limits for kilns equipped with 

electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and 

fabric filters (FF) and scrubber liquid 

flow limits for kilns equipped with wet 

scrubbers. Particulate matter serves as a 

surrogate for the non-mercury metal 

HAP. The NESHAP also regulates 

opacity or visible emissions from most 

of the PSH operations, with opacity also 

serving as a surrogate for HAP metals. 

The PM emission limit for existing 

kilns and coolers is 0.12 pounds PM per 

ton of stone feed (lb/tsf) for kilns using 

dry air pollution control systems (e.g., 

dry scrubbers, fabric filters, baghouses) 

prior to January 5, 2004. Existing kilns 

that have installed and are operating 

wet scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, 

must meet an emission limit of 0.60 lb/ 

tsf. Kilns which meet the criteria for the 

0.60 lb/tsf emission limit must continue 

to use a wet scrubber for PM emission 

control in order to be eligible to meet 

the 0.60 lb/tsf limit. If at any time such 

a kiln switches to a dry control, it would 

become subject to the 0.12 lb/tsf 

emission limit, regardless of the type of 

control device used in the future. The 

PM emission limit for all new kilns and 

lime coolers is 0.10 lb/tsf. As a 

compliance option, these emission 

limits (except for the 0.60 lb/tsf limit) 

may be averaged across kilns and 

coolers at the lime manufacturing plant. 

If the lime manufacturing plant has both 

new and existing kilns and coolers, then 

the emission limit would be an average 

of the existing and new kiln PM 

emissions limits, weighted by the 

annual actual production rates of the 

individual kilns, except that no new 

kiln may exceed the PM emission level 

of 0.10 lb/tsf. Existing kilns that have 

installed and are operating wet 

scrubbers prior to January 5, 2004, and 

that are required to meet a 0.60 lb/tsf 

emission limit must meet that limit 

individually, and they may not be 

included in any averaging calculations. 

Emissions from PSH operations that 

are vented through a stack are subject to 

a limit of 0.05 grams PM per dry 

standard cubic meter (g/dscm) and 7 

percent opacity. Stack emissions from 

PSH operations that are controlled by 

wet scrubbers are subject to the 0.05 g 

PM/dscm limit but are not subject to the 

opacity limit. Fugitive emissions from 

PSH operations are subject to a 10 

percent opacity limit. 

For each building enclosing any PSH 

operation, each of the affected PSH 

operations in the building must comply 

individually with the applicable PM 

and opacity emission limitations. 

Otherwise, there must be no visible 

emissions from the building, except 

from a vent, and the building’s vent 

emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm 

and 7 percent opacity. For each fabric 

filter that controls emissions from only 

an individual, enclosed processed stone 

storage bin, the opacity must not exceed 

7 percent. For each set of multiple 

processed stone storage bins with 

combined stack emissions, emissions 

must not exceed 0.05 g/dscm and 7 

percent opacity. The current Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP does not allow 

averaging of PSH operations. 

The 2020 amendments finalized the 

residual risk and technology review 

(RTR) conducted for the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP. The 2020 RTR 

found that the Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP provided an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health, more 

stringent standards were not necessary 

to prevent an adverse environmental 

effect, and that there were no 

developments in practices, processes, or 

control technologies that would warrant 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9091 

revisions to the standards. In addition, 

the 2020 RTR addressed periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

(SSM) by removing any exemptions 

during SSM operations. Lastly, the 2020 

amendments included provisions 

requiring electronic reporting. 

C. What changes did we propose for the 

lime manufacturing source category in 

our January 5, 2023, proposal? 

On January 5, 2023, the EPA 

published a proposal in the Federal 

Register for the Lime Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAAA to propose setting MACT 

standards for HCl, mercury, THC as a 

surrogate for organic HAP, and D/F. 

Table 2 includes a summary of the 

MACT standards in the January 5, 2023, 

proposal. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR THE LIME MANUFACTURING NESHAP INCLUDED IN THE

JANUARY 5, 2023, PROPOSAL

Pollutant 1 Kiln type 2 Stone 

produced 3

New 

source 

limit 

Unit of measure 

Existing 

source 

limit 

Unit of measure 

HCl ......................... SR ........................ DL, DB ................. 1.6 lb/ton stone produced ......................... 2.2 lb/ton stone produced. 

SR ........................ QL ........................ 0.021 lb/ton stone produced ......................... 0.58 lb/ton stone produced. 

PR ........................ DL, DB ................. 0.39 lb/ton stone produced ......................... 0.39 lb/ton stone produced.

PR ........................ QL ........................ 0.015 lb/ton stone produced ......................... 0.015 lb/ton stone produced. 

VK ........................ QL ........................ 0.021 lb/ton stone produced ......................... 0.021 lb/ton stone produced. 

Mercury .................. All ......................... QL, DL .................. 24.9 lb/MMton stone produced ................... 24.9 lb/MMton stone produced. 

All ......................... DB ........................ 24.4 lb/MMton stone produced ................... 33.1 lb/MMton stone produced. 

THC ........................ All ......................... All ......................... 0.86 ppmvd as propane @7 percent O2 .... 3.47 ppmvd as propane @7 percent O2. 

D/F ......................... All ......................... All ......................... 0.028 ng/dscm (TEQ) @7 percent O2 .......... 0.028 ng/dscm (TEQ) @7 percent O2. 

1 Hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC), dioxin/furans (D/F). 

2Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). 

3 Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). 

III. Analytical Results and Proposed 

Decisions 

This section provides a description of 

this proposal, which supplements the 

January 5, 2023, proposed amendments, 

and the EPA’s rationale for this 

supplemental proposal. 

A. What revisions are we proposing to 

the hydrogen chloride emission 

standards? 

As a result of reviewing public 

comments received on the January 5, 

2023, proposed amendments, the EPA 

was made aware of five instances where 

kilns were subcategorized as preheater 

rotary kilns (PR) producing quick lime 

(QL) but were in fact straight rotary 

kilns (SR) producing QL. All five kilns 

identified are located at the Carmeuse 

Lime and Stone plant in Gary, Indiana. 

One of these five kilns was in the HCl 

MACT pool for the PR, QL subcategory, 

and was included in the Upper 

Predictive Limit (UPL) calculations. 

This kiln was moved from this 

subcategory to the SR, QL subcategory. 

Removing this kiln from the PR, QL 

subcategory and adding it to the SR, QL 

subcategory changed the data used in 

the UPL calculation and therefore 

changed the UPL calculation results. 

Refer to the memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for the Lime 

Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal,’’ which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking, for a detailed description of 

the revised calculations. 

In addition, in the January 5, 2023, 

proposal we did not subcategorize 

vertical kilns by the type of stone 

produced. We received a comment that 

the EPA should subcategorize vertical 

kilns by product, similar to the 

subcategorization of rotary kilns. (See 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–20177– 

0015–0166). In this action we are 

proposing a vertical kiln (VK): dolomitic 

lime (DL), dead-burned, dolomitic lime 

(DB) subcategory as was done with the 

proposed PR, DL/DB rotary kiln 

emission limits. 

The changes in our proposed HCl 

emission limits for new and existing 

sources are include in table 3. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF RE-PROPOSED NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE

Kiln type 1 Stone 

produced 2

New source limit 

(lb/ton stone 

produced) 

Existing source 

limit 

(lb/ton stone 

produced) 

SR ...................................................................................................................................... QL 0.015 0.52 

SR ...................................................................................................................................... DL, DB 1.7 2.3 

PR ...................................................................................................................................... QL 0.096 0.096 

PR ...................................................................................................................................... DL, DB 0.39 0.39 

VK ...................................................................................................................................... QL 0.021 0.021 

VK ...................................................................................................................................... DL, DB 0.39 0.39 

1Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). 

2 Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). 

In the January 5, 2023, proposal the 

EPA estimated that applying a removal 

efficiency of dry sorbent injection (DSI) 

controls using hydrated lime to each 

kiln in the source category to meet the 

MACT floor would result in a reduction 

of HCl emissions from these sources of 

1,163 tons per year (tpy). As a result of 

the changes to these subcategories, 

explained in this section, the EPA now 

estimates that applying a removal 

efficiency of DSI controls to meet the 

MACT floor would result in a reduction 

of HCl emissions from these sources of 

884 tons of HCl per year. 

We conducted a revised beyond-thefloor analysis, where we evaluated 

whether existing kilns would be able to 

comply with the proposed new source 

HCl MACT floor limits. We found that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3See 86 FR 64393, November 18,2021, where we 

found that $26,000/ton for HCl was not cost 

effective as a beyond-the-floor option. 

4U.S. EPA. 2005. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk 

Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington DC. 

5 International Agency for Research on Cancer 

(IARC). 1992. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation 

of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 54: 

Occupational Exposures to Mists and Vapours from 

Strong Inorganic Acids; and Other Industrial 

Chemicals. World Health Organization, Lyon. 

6Morita T., Watanabe Y., Takeda K., Okumura K. 

Effects of pH in the in vitro chromosomal aberration 

test. Mutat. Res. 1989;225:55–60. 

7Brusick D. Genotoxic effects in cultured 

mammalian cells produced by low pH treatment 

conditions and increased ion concentrations. 

Environ. Mutag. 1986;8:879–886. 

8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Hydrogen Chloride. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. 1995. 

9NCI Dictionary of Cancer terms. National Cancer 

Institute. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2023, from 

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/ 

cancer-terms/def/hyperplasia. 

10EPA (2018) Chemicals evaluated for 

carcinogenic potential annual cancer report 2018. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

the estimated reduction in HCl 

emissions from existing sources 

complying with a beyond-the-floor HCl 

limit is 1,453 tpy. The estimated 

incremental reduction, where we 

compare the existing source beyond-thefloor limit to the existing source MACT 

floor limit, is 568 tpy. Refer to the 

memorandum ‘‘Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 

Plants Industry Supplemental 

Proposal,’’ which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking, for a 

detailed description of the revised 

calculations. Using revised cost 

calculations (refer to section IV.C. of 

this preamble) we estimate the total 

capital investment to be $749,000,000 

and total annual costs to be 

$139,000,000 per year for beyond-thefloor limits. This results in a cost 

effectiveness of approximately $95,000 

per ton of HCl removal. We do not 

consider these control costs to be 

reasonable compared to other rules 

where we have regulated HCl and costs 

were a consideration.3 Therefore we are 

not proposing a beyond-the-floor 

standard for HCl. Refer to the 

memorandum, ‘‘Cost Impacts for the 

Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal’’, included in 

the docket of this rulemaking. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No 

techniques were identified that would 

achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for the HCl 

subcategories. Therefore, consistent 

with the January 5, 2023, proposal the 

EPA is not proposing a beyond-the-floor 

HCl limit for new sources in this 

supplemental proposal. 

In its report, the Small Business 

Advocacy Review Panel requested that 

the EPA consider establishing a healthbased emission limit (HBEL) for HCl 

and asked the EPA to take comment on 

a potential HBEL standard. For a HAP 

with an established health threshold, 

CAA section 112(d)(4) allows the EPA to 

consider such health thresholds when 

establishing emission standards under 

CAA section 112(d). Section 112(d)(4) of 

the CAA states, ‘‘With respect to 

pollutants for which a health threshold 

has been established, the Administrator 

may consider such threshold level, with 

an ample margin of safety, when 

establishing emission standards under 

this subsection.’’ In other words, for 

HAP with a health threshold, standards 

may be promulgated under a process 

different from that otherwise specified 

in CAA section 112(d), and these 

standards are referred to as HBEL. Based 

on the request, the EPA seeks comment 

on establishing an HBEL under CAA 

section 112(d)(4) for HCl. 

The EPA is mindful that, in Sierra 

Club v. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 895 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the 

court remanded the NESHAP for Brick 

and Structural Clay Products 

Manufacturing and for Clay Ceramics 

Manufacturing. The court found that the 

EPA had not sufficiently supported its 

determination that HCl is a ‘‘pollutant 

for which a health threshold has been 

established’’; specifically, the court 

determined that the rulemaking record 

did not show that HCl is not a 

carcinogen. 895 F.3d at 11. The court 

also stated that the EPA had not 

sufficiently explained why it had used 

the EPA inhalation Reference 

Concentration (RfC) instead of using 

California’s health value in setting the 

HBEL. Below, the EPA considers the 

court’s points related to the denying the 

use of an HBEL for HCl as well as an 

example of how an HBEL may be 

established for this rulemaking. 

With regard to carcinogenicity, it is 

important to acknowledge that the 

science and methods of cancer risk 

assessment have evolved over the 33 

years since the CAA amendments were 

issued. The EPA now recognizes that 

carcinogens can be either non-threshold 

or threshold pollutants.4 Linear nonthreshold carcinogens can cause adverse 

health effects, including cancer, at any 

level of exposure. In contrast, non-linear 

threshold carcinogens may pose a 

cancer risk only above a certain 

exposure level. Based on the science 

and methods developed over the last 33 

years, and CAA section 112(d)(4)’s focus 

on a threshold, not cancer risk, we 

believe that the issue is not whether HCl 

is a carcinogen but rather whether HCl 

has a threshold. 

An important consideration when 

determining if a carcinogen has a 

threshold is whether it is mutagenic. If 

a pollutant is mutagenic, science 

supports that any dose may cause 

cancer; in other words, there is not 

likely to be a threshold. In the case of 

HCl, the available evidence does not 

indicate that HCl has a mutagenic effect. 

Bacteria that have been exposed to HCl 

in research studies have not exhibited 

any mutations.5 Although studies 

reported by Morita et al. (1989) 6 and 

Brusick (1986) 7 involving mammalian 

exposure to HCl have found 

mutagenicity, researchers have 

concluded that these effects are an 

artifact of acidic conditions caused by 

exceptionally high doses of HCl. 

Genotoxic or mutagenic effects caused 

at high doses by changes in pH are not 

relevant to environmental levels of 

exposure under normal physiological 

conditions. 

Another important consideration in 

determining whether a pollutant has a 

threshold is understanding whether 

there are alternative mechanisms by 

which the observed effects could lead to 

the development of cancer. In an animal 

study designed to observe cancer 

outcomes, rats exposed to HCl showed 

increased cell production and tissue 

enlargement, known as hyperplasia, in 

the respiratory tract. However, the rats 

showed no evidence of HCl-induced 

tumors or cancer.8 Hyperplasia may or 

may not progress to tumor development 

and cancer over time.9 However, cancer 

cannot occur through this mechanism if 

exposure is below the threshold at 

which hyperplasia occurs. Continuous 

exposure to a chemical or its metabolite 

can cause persistent cell killing which 

in turn may result in regenerative 

hyperplasia in the damaged tissue. The 

EPA’s Office of Pesticides recognizes 

that ‘‘for irreversible tissue alterations to 

occur in humans, including cancer by 

this mode of action, a sufficient 

exposure (emphasis added) must be 

encountered over a prolonged 

period.’’ 10 The EPA’s Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS) program has 

similarly recognized the existence of a 

threshold of exposure for hyperplasia 

and resulting cancer outcomes from 

exposure to chloroform. Chloroform was 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9093 

11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Chloroform. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. 2001. 

12U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) on 

Hydrogen Chloride. National Center for 

Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, DC. 1995. 

13 Kamrin, M.A. 1992. Workshop on the health 

effects of HCl in ambient air. Reg. Pharm. 

Toxicol.15: 73–82. 

14Environmental Protection Agency. Integrated 

Risk Information System (IRIS) on Hydrogen 

Chloride. National Center for Environmental 

Assessment, Office of Research and Development, 

Washington, DC. 1995. 

15HCl concentrations in the ambient air usually 

do not exceed 0.01 mg/m3 (IARC, 1992). 

16U.S. EPA, 1994. Methods for Derivation of 

Inhalation Reference Concentrations and 

Application of Inhalation Dosimetry [See section 

4.3.9.2. Assignment of Confidence Levels, p. 4–80– 

82]. 17OEHHA. (2000). Determination of Noncancer 

Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Appendix D.3 

Chronic RELs and toxicity summaries using the 

previous version of the Hot Spots Risk Assessment 

guidelines (OEHHA 1999). Chronic Toxicity 

Summary: Hydrogen Chloride. 

18U.S. EPA, 2009. STATUS REPORT: Advances 

in Inhalation Dosimetry of Gases and Vapors with 

Portal of Entry Effects in the Upper Respiratory 

Tract. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, DC. 

labeled as likely to be carcinogenic to 

humans under high-exposure conditions 

that cause hyperplasia. However, the 

EPA concluded that chloroform is not 

likely to be carcinogenic to humans 

under exposure conditions that do not 

cause hyperplasia.11

The EPA derived a reference 

concentration (RfC) for HCl which 

identifies a health-based threshold for 

hyperplasia 12. This RfC represents an 

estimate (with uncertainty spanning 

perhaps an order of magnitude) of a 

daily inhalation exposure to the human 

population (including sensitive 

subgroups) that is likely to be without 

an appreciable risk of deleterious effects 

during a lifetime. An expert review 

workshop had previously evaluated the 

evidence available for HCl and for a 

similar chemical, sulfuric acid, and 

suggested that no adverse effects from 

exposure to HCl would be expected in 

humans at or below 3 mg/m3.13 The 

EPA performed an independent 

evaluation to identify a value expected 

to be without adverse effects, including 

in sensitive subgroups. The EPA’s doseresponse evaluation incorporated a 300- 

fold factor to account for any residual 

uncertainty, including the potential for 

variability in response across the human 

population. The final RfC derived by the 

EPA was 0.02 mg/m3.14 Exposure to 

HCl in the general population is 

expected to occur below 3 mg/m3 and 

0.02 mg/m3, below which there are no 

observable adverse health effects. 

Considering the evidence regarding 15

and the availability of a hyperplasia 

protective health threshold, the EPA 

seeks comment on whether it is 

appropriate to consider HCl a threshold 

pollutant under CAA section 112(d)(4). 

The EPA also requests comments on 

new or additional scientific evidence 

that will inform the agency whether or 

not HCl has a threshold. 

In its 2018 opinion in Sierra Club, the 

D.C. Circuit also stated that the EPA did 

not fully explain why the EPA’s RfC for 

HCl, which the Agency has designated 

as a ‘‘low confidence’’ value, was 

preferable to an alternative value 

developed by the California EPA, 

known as the chronic reference 

exposure level (REL). The EPA had 

previously explained in its Methods for 

Derivation of Inhalation Reference 

Concentrations and Application of 

Inhalation Dosimetry and Guidelines for 

Carcinogenic Risk Assessment that the 

Agency derives RfC only when there are 

enough data to designate a pollutant as 

having a threshold and there are enough 

data to set a numerical RfC. Also, after 

deriving an RfC, the EPA evaluates the 

data used to derive the RfC and assigns 

confidence levels of high, medium, or 

low to each of its reference 

concentrations based on the 

completeness of the supporting data 

base.16 A ‘‘low confidence’’ label in the 

RfC is applied to a derivation that is 

based on several data extrapolations and 

a less complete data base than those 

with a ‘‘high confidence’’ or ‘‘medium 

confidence’’ labels. Therefore, a ‘‘low 

confidence’’ RfC value indicates that it 

may change if additional supporting 

data become available. It does not mean 

that the current available data base is 

weak or unreliable. In fact, the principal 

and supporting studies selected to 

derive the RfC for HCl meet the data 

base criteria for estimation of an RfC 

which means that the data base is 

adequate and acceptable. The California 

EPA chronic REL for HCl was derived 

using the same principal and supporting 

studies. Therefore, the California EPA 

value reflects the same data base 

confidence as the EPA RfC. 

While the EPA and California EPA 

values were derived using the same 

principal study and similar 

methodologies, there was a significant 

difference in the derivation of each 

value, which led to the California EPA 

value being more stringent. The 

principal driver for this difference was 

the California EPA’s exclusion of midrespiratory tract (i.e., trachea) effects 

from its dosimetry adjustment 

calculations.17 By contrast, the EPA 

incorporated both upper- (i.e., nose, 

mouth) and mid-respiratory tract effects. 

California EPA’s sole rationale for the 

exclusion of mid-respiratory tract effects 

was based on the prediction that 

humans are expected to be relatively 

more susceptible in the upperrespiratory tract. 

Although the predominant effects of 

inhaled HCl are expected to occur in the 

upper respiratory tract, the EPA 

disagrees with the California EPA’s 

exclusion of mid-respiratory tract effects 

and believes that California EPA’s 

approach is inconsistent with the EPA’s 

own guidelines for deriving inhalation 

reference concentrations. The principal 

study relied upon by the EPA and 

California EPA reported that rats 

exposed to HCl developed a higher 

incidence of hyperplasia in both upperand mid-respiratory tracts. Furthermore, 

the EPA guidelines establish that when 

effects are observed in the midrespiratory tract, this region should also 

be considered in the dosimetry 

adjustment calculations.18 Therefore, 

the EPA approach to derive the RfC is 

more robust because it better represents 

the observed respiratory effects reported 

in the scientific literature. 

In contemplating whether the EPA 

could set an HBEL for HCl emissions in 

the lime manufacturing source category, 

the EPA reviewed the conclusions on 

the potential for HCl to cause adverse 

health effects in the 2020 RTR. The 

maximum chronic Hazard Quotient 

(HQ) for HCl was 0.04, and the 

maximum acute HQ hazard was 0.6 

based upon actual emissions. Because 

the hazards associated with HCl were 

acceptable with an ample margin of 

safety in the 2020 RTR, it is possible to 

contemplate setting an HBEL for this 

rule. Refer to the November 2023 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Approach to Assess 

a Health-Based Emission Limit for 

Hydrochloric Acid for the Lime 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ 

located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. The modeling methodology 

applied for both the 2020 RTR and the 

2023 HBEL proposal accounts for 

aggregate impacts to census blocks for 

locations that may have multiple lime 

manufacturing plants within a 50 km 

domain. The proposed HBEL for HCl is 

at an emission level that is higher than 

the modeled actual emissions for the 

2020 RTR. An example of what an HBEL 

for HCl might look like is presented 

below. 

To set an HBEL for HCl, we would 

establish an emission standard to ensure 

that levels of HCl remain well below the 

concentrations at which any impacts 

would be expected to occur. As an 

example, an appropriate approach to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

19 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015– 

0166, section X. A. 

setting a health-based threshold might 

be to establish a mass-based standard. 

Such a standard could include both a 

tons per year limit as well as a pounds 

per hour limit to ensure protection from 

both chronic and acute impacts. We 

have provided an analysis of such a 

standard in the November 2023 

memorandum ‘‘Risk Approach to Assess 

a Health-Based Emission Limit for 

Hydrochloric Acid for the Lime 

Manufacturing Source Category,’’ 

located in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Based on this analysis, the 

HBEL would be an emission limit of 300 

tpy, not to exceed 685 pounds per hour 

(lb/hr). We would expect such a limit to 

ensure that HCl emissions from this 

source category, while could be higher 

than in the proposal would remain at 

levels consistent with a chronic HQ no 

greater than 0.2 and a maximum acute 

HQ no greater than 0.6. We request 

comment on whether such a standard 

would provide an ample margin of 

safety and whether additional measures 

would be needed to do so. 

Appropriate monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements would also be required to 

ensure compliance with the limit. The 

EPA is requesting comment on an 

appropriate structure for incorporating 

an HBEL in the rule text. Refer to the 

memorandum, ‘‘Revisions to 40 CFR 

part 63 Subpart AAAAA to 

Accommodate a Health-Based 

Standard’’, included in the docket for 

this rulemaking, for a description of 

potential revisions to the subpart to 

include initial compliance, continuous 

compliance, recordkeeping, and 

reporting rule language in support of an 

HBEL. 

B. What revisions are we proposing to 

the mercury emission standards? 

Prior to the January 5, 2023, proposed 

rule, the EPA evaluated the use of an 

intra-quarry variability (IQV) factor to be 

applied in the mercury UPL calculations 

to account for the naturally occurring 

variability in mercury content of the raw 

materials. The formation of the rock 

being mined for raw materials occurred 

over a large span of geological time. 

Consistent with the approach followed 

in the Portland Cement Manufacturing 

NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, 

and the Brick and Structural Clay 

Products NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart JJJJJ, the IQV factor accounts for 

this variability in the mercury content of 

the raw material over geological time. 

However, in the January 5, 2023, 

proposed rule amendments we did not 

believe we had sufficient data to apply 

an IQV factor. 

As described in the January 5, 2023, 

proposal, the EPA was provided data 

from the quarries of two separate lime 

manufacturing facilities (Carmeuse 

Maysville and Graymont Eden quarries). 

Both facilities were included in the 

mercury MACT floor calculations. At 

the first facility, the mercury content of 

the kiln feed was sampled, and the 

results tabulated. At the second facility 

the quarry was sampled, at multiple 

bore-hole depths, as well as the kiln 

feed, and the results tabulated. 

When developing the January 5, 2023, 

proposal, the EPA had believed that the 

kiln feed data was more representative 

of the mercury content of the raw 

material, but wrongly assumed this was 

due to the mined quarry stone first 

being stored in open storage piles over 

time, where new stone added to the 

storage pile was assumed to homogenize 

with other stone in the storage pile. In 

the public comments received, industry 

representatives explained that stone 

from the quarry is stored in ‘‘shortterm’’ storage piles,19 where new stone 

added does not have time to 

‘‘homogenize’’ with other stone before 

being fed into the kiln. It was also noted 

that quarry samples, as collected in the 

Graymont bore-hole sample data, 

represent the intent of the IQV by 

reporting on the measured variability of 

the mercury content of the rock over 

varying depths, representing variations 

over geologic time. Based on these 

comments, the EPA reconsidered the 

suitability of these data to develop an 

IQV factor. 

The EPA considered both the 

Graymont and Carmeuse quarry data in 

the IQV factor analysis. Both facilities 

were part of the MACT floor pool in the 

QL subcategory. From this analysis a 

relative standard deviation (RSD) was 

calculated by dividing the standard 

deviation by the data average. The RSD 

was then incorporated into the UPL 

calculations for new and existing QL 

sources as part of the ‘‘pooled variance’’ 

factor of the UPL equation. Refer to the 

memorandum ‘‘Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 

Plants Industry Supplemental 

Proposal,’’ which is included in the 

docket for this rulemaking, for a 

detailed description of the revised 

calculations. The application of an IQV 

factor revised the originally proposed 

mercury emission limit for new and 

existing QL sources from 24.9 pounds 

per million tons of lime produced 

(rounded to 25 lb/MMton) for both new 

and existing sources to 27 lb/MMton for 

new sources, and 34 lb/MMton for 

existing sources in the QL subcategory. 

As part of the evaluation of a mercury 

standard with the inclusion of an IQV 

factor, the EPA reconsidered whether a 

separate subcategory was necessary for 

kilns producing dead-burned dolomitic 

lime (DB), as proposed in the January 5, 

2023, proposed amendments. To do 

this, we first developed standards based 

on no subcategorization and the 

application of an IQV factor. The result 

of this analysis was 27 lb Hg/MMton for 

new sources and 34 lb Hg/MMton for 

existing sources. These standards were 

developed based on the kilns that made 

up the MACT pool. These kilns were 

producing high calcium quick lime (QL) 

and dolomitic lime (DL). Based on test 

data available, the EPA determined that 

kilns producing DB would be able to 

comply with this existing source 

standard after the application of air 

pollution controls. Based on the test 

data available, the EPA determined that 

there was little difference in mercury 

emissions from SR and PR kilns 

producing Ql and/or DL. Moreover, we 

have found that residence time of raw 

materials in a kiln has little impact on 

mercury emissions. We are proposing to 

not create subcategories based on kiln 

type in setting mercury emission limits. 

Our proposed mercury emission 

limits for new and existing sources, 

without subcategories, are included in 

table 4. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RE-PROPOSED NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR MERCURY

Kiln type Stone produced 

New source limit 

(lb/MMton stone 

produced) 

Existing source 

limit 

(lb/MMton stone 

produced) 

All ............................................................................ All ............................................................................ 27 34 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9095 

20See 79 FR 75638, December 18, 2014, where the 

EPA found that a beyond-the-floor option for 

mercury of $74,000/lb was not cost effective. 

In the January 5, 2023, proposed 

amendments the EPA estimated that 

applying a removal efficiency of 

activated carbon injection (ACI) controls 

to the source category to meet the 

MACT floor would result in a reduction 

of mercury emissions from these sources 

of approximately 489 pounds of 

mercury per year. As a result of this 

supplemental proposal, and the 

inclusion of an IQV factor in the UPL 

calculations for mercury, the EPA 

estimates that applying ACI controls 

would result in a reduction of mercury 

emissions from these sources of 460 

pounds of mercury per year. 

We conducted a beyond-the-floor 

analysis, where we evaluated whether 

existing kilns would be able to comply 

with the new source mercury MACT 

floor limits. We found that the estimated 

reduction in mercury emissions from a 

beyond-the-floor mercury limit is 

approximately 490 pounds (0.24 tons) of 

mercury per year. The estimated 

incremental reduction, where we 

compare the existing source beyond-thefloor limit to the existing source MACT 

floor limit, is 30 pounds (0.01 tons) of 

mercury per year. We estimate the total 

capital investment to be $244,000,000 

and total annual costs to be 

$116,000,000 per year for beyond-thefloor limits. This results in a cost 

effectiveness of approximately $238,000 

per pound ($476,000,000 per ton) of 

mercury removal. We do not consider 

the control costs to be reasonable 

compared to other rules where we have 

regulated mercury and costs are 

consideration.20 Therefore we are not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor standard 

for mercury. This is a change from that 

in the January 5, 2023, proposal. Refer 

to the memorandum, ‘‘Cost Impacts for 

the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal’’, included in 

the docket of this rulemaking. 

As part of our beyond-the-floor 

analysis, we typically identify control 

techniques that have the ability to 

achieve an emissions limit more 

stringent than the MACT floor. No 

techniques were identified that would 

achieve HAP reductions greater than the 

new source floors for the mercury. 

Therefore, consistent with the January 5, 

2023, proposal, the EPA is not 

proposing a beyond-the-floor mercury 

limit for new sources in this proposed 

rule. A detailed description of our 

beyond-the-floor analysis and 

conclusions is provided in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) Floor 

Analysis for the Lime Manufacturing 

Plants Industry Supplemental Proposal’’ 

which is included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

C. What revisions are we proposing to 

the organic HAP emission standards? 

The EPA received comments on the 

January 5, 2023, proposed amendments 

opposing the use of THC as a surrogate 

for organic HAP. Commenters 

representing industry noted that vertical 

kilns have relatively elevated THC 

emissions, while organic HAP emissions 

are relatively low. They note that this is 

because of the influence of unburned 

fuel in the kiln exhaust either due to 

countercurrent flow switching 

directions in twin-shaft vertical kilns, or 

incomplete air-fuel mixing in singleshaft vertical kilns. 

The EPA re-evaluated the test data of 

organic HAP emissions and identified 

eight pollutants from the data that were 

found to be consistently emitted by the 

lime manufacturing source category. 

The list includes both ‘‘high volume’’ 

and ‘‘low volume’’ organic HAP. These 

include the following pollutants: 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, 

benzene, xylenes (a mixture of m, o, and 

p isomers), styrene, ethyl benzene, and 

naphthalene. The EPA has determined 

that the emissions data of these eight 

pollutants best represent the typical 

organic HAP emissions of the source 

category. Furthermore, the EPA has 

determined that controlling the 

emissions of these eight pollutants from 

a lime manufacturing facility by use of 

activated carbon or other means would 

also control potential emissions of all 

other organic HAP because the same 

controls applied to control the eight 

pollutants would also be effective 

controls for all organic HAP. For these 

reasons, the EPA is re-proposing to use 

an aggregated emission standard of the 

eight organic HAP identified in the data 

analysis as a surrogate for total organic 

HAP instead of the previously proposed 

THC standard. Commenters requested 

that the EPA consider a list of 13 

pollutants but further review of the data 

for which the EPA could validate test 

reports showed that only the eight 

pollutants listed in this section were 

found to be emitted consistently. 

For each of the eight organic HAP, the 

EPA calculated the emission limit value 

equivalent to three times the 

representative detection level (3xRDL) 

of the test method. This was then 

compared to UPL calculations for the 

eight pollutants. In all cases for both 

new and existing sources the 3xRDL 

value, which represents the lowest 

value that can be accurately measured, 

was above the calculated UPL. We are 

accordingly proposing to set the MACT 

floor at this level. Refer to the 

memorandum titled, ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for the Lime 

Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal’’ included in the 

docket of this rulemaking for a detailed 

description of the methodology used. 

Table 5 includes a summary of the 

3xRDL values for each organic HAP 

used to develop the aggregated limit. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF 3xRDL VALUES FOR NEW AND EXISTING ORGANIC HAP 

Pollutant 

RDL 

(ppmvd @ 

7 percent O2) 

3xRDL 

(ppmvd @ 

7 percent O2) 

Formaldehyde .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.42 

Acetaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.29 0.87 

Toluene .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.014 0.028 

Benzene ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.022 0.066 

Xylenes (mixture of m, o, and p isomers) ............................................................................................................... 0.023 0.069 

Styrene ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0043 0.013 

Ethyl benzene .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.057 0.18 

Napthalene ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.0081 0.025 

Total .................................................................................................................................................................. ........................ 1.7 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Similar to the organic HAP limit in 

the Portland Cement NESHAP, the EPA 

is proposing to set the new and existing 

source organic HAP limit as a sum of 

the 3xRDL emission limit values for the 

eight pollutants identified in table 5 (1.7 

ppmvd at 7 percent O2) as a surrogate 

for total organic HAP. The EPA believes 

that by controlling the emissions of the 

eight organic HAP identified in table 5 

a source would also control the 

emissions of any organic HAP 

potentially emitted by the source. Refer 

to the memorandum ‘‘Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

Floor Analysis for the Lime 

Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal,’’ which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking, for a detailed description of 

the revised calculations and analyses. 

In the January 5, 2023, proposed 

amendments the EPA proposed a THC 

emission limit for new and existing 

sources and estimated that applying ACI 

controls to the source category to meet 

the MACT floor would result in a 

reduction of THC emissions by 566 tons 

of THC per year from these sources. 

With the revised proposed limits, the 

EPA estimates the new and existing 

source organic HAP limit would result 

in a reduction of organic HAP emissions 

by 20 tons of organic HAP per year. 

We conducted a beyond-the-floor 

analysis and found that because we are 

proposing emission limits for both new 

and existing sources that are set at 

3xRDL of the test method, which is 

defined as the lowest level where a test 

method performs with acceptable 

precision, even if controls were 

available that had better performance, 

such performance could not be 

accurately measured. Therefore, we are 

not proposing a beyond-the-floor 

standard for organic HAP for new or 

existing sources. 

D. What revisions are we proposing to 

the dioxin/furan emission standards? 

In the January 5, 2023, proposed 

amendments, the EPA followed the 

guidance of the June 5, 2014, 

memorandum titled, ‘‘Determination of 

‘non-detect’ from EPA Method 29 

(multi-metals) and EPA Method 23 

(dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating 

the setting of MACT floors versus 

establishing work practice standards’’ 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0015–0117), which provides guidance 

on using detection limits as an indicator 

of the measurable presence of a given 

pollutant, specifically where multicomponent samples, such as with D/F 

congeners, are the pollutants of concern. 

Additionally, the EPA used the 

procedures laid out in the December 13, 

2011, memorandum titled ‘‘Data and 

procedure for handling below detection 

level data in analyzing various pollutant 

emissions databases for MACT and RTR 

emissions limits’’ (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2017–0015–0119), which 

describes the procedure for handling 

below detection level (BDL) data and 

developing RDL data when setting 

MACT emission limits. Similar to 

organic HAP, and in accordance with 

these guidance documents, the new and 

existing UPL for D/F were compared to 

the emission limit value determined to 

be equivalent to 3xRDL of the test 

method, and the 3xRDL value was 

found to be greater than the UPL. 

Therefore, the MACT floor limit for 

D/F was set based on the 3xRDL value 

of the test method. 

Commenters on the January 5, 2023, 

proposed amendments noted that in 

setting the 3xRDL value, the EPA set the 

value based on a sample collection 

volume of 4 dry standard cubic meters 

(dscm). Commenters stated that the EPA 

should have set the 3xRDL value based 

on a 3 dscm sample collection volume. 

After further review of the tables in the 

two guidance memoranda, the EPA 

agrees that the 3xRDL value should be 

based on a 3 dscm sample volume. In 

this action we are correcting the 3xRDL 

value for new and existing sources 

based on 3 dscm of sample collection 

volume as indicated in table 6. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF RE-PROPOSED NEW AND EXISTING SOURCE LIMITS FOR DIOXIN/FURANS

Kiln type Stone produced New source 

limit Unit of measure Existing source limit Unit of measure 

All ..................................... All .................................... 0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 percent O2.0.037 ng/dscm (TEQ) @ 7 percent O2. 

Applying the limits listed above, the 

EPA estimates the new and existing 

source D/F MACT floor limit would 

result in a reduction of D/F emissions 

by 9.5 × 10¥5 pounds per year (4.7 × 

10¥8 tons per year). 

Similar to the organic HAP limits, we 

are proposing D/F emission limits for 

both new and existing sources that are 

set at 3xRDL of the test method. Because 

the emission limits could not be set any 

lower than 3xRDL we did not identify 

beyond-the-floor options and are 

proposing MACT floor-based D/F 

standards for new and existing sources. 

The EPA also considered whether it 

would be appropriate to set a work 

practice standard for D/F emissions in 

lieu of a numeric limit. Section 112(h) 

allows the EPA to set a work practice 

standard when it is not feasible to 

prescribe or enforce an emission 

standard. In this case the provision that 

could apply would be the application of 

measurement methodology to a 

particular class of sources is not 

practicable due to technological and 

economic limitations. This situation 

could occur if a significant majority, but 

not all, of the emissions data were 

below the detection limit. 

The data for D/F emissions available 

to the EPA consisted of three tests with 

three test runs each and five tests where 

there was only a single test run. Given 

that the EPA does not consider singlerun emission tests to be valid tests for 

establishing MACT standards, we 

focused on the three-run emission tests. 

Two of these three-run tests detected D/ 

F emissions. We note that none of the 

single-run tests detected D/F emissions, 

but overall, the EPA is proposing that 

the data do not support establishing a 

work practice standard because they do 

not support a finding that the 

application of measurement 

methodology is impracticable. 

As a result, we have determined to 

propose a numeric limit for D/F 

emissions. However, given the 

significant number of non-detect 

emission results, we are specifically 

requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of a work practice 

standard for D/F as well as any 

additional data that could support such 

a finding. Commenters supporting a 

work practice standard should describe 

how the standard would work, provide 

supporting data to demonstrate the work 

practice will control D/F emissions, and 

address the issue of the limited D/F 

emission test data available to the EPA. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9097 

E. What other actions are we proposing, 

and what is the rationale for those 

actions? 

The EPA is including definitions of 

the terms ‘‘new source’’ and ‘‘existing 

source’’ as related to the requirements of 

this supplemental proposal and to 

clearly indicate that a ‘‘new source’’ in 

reference to the requirements of this 

supplemental proposal is any applicable 

source constructed after January 5, 2023, 

and an ‘‘existing source’’ in reference to 

the requirements of this supplemental 

proposal is any applicable source 

constructed before January 5, 2023. 

Additionally, the EPA is providing a 

definition of the term ‘‘stone produced’’ 

used in the units of measure for HCl and 

mercury emission limits. The limits are 

in units of mass of pollutant per mass 

of production, or pounds per ton of 

stone produced, where ‘‘stone 

produced’’ refers to the production of 

lime (QL, DL, and/or DB). 

F. What revisions are we proposing to 

the performance testing, monitoring, 

and recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

We are proposing an emissions 

averaging compliance alternative that 

would allow lime manufacturing 

facilities to demonstrate compliance 

with the HCl and mercury standards by 

averaging emissions of each pollutant 

across existing kilns located at the same 

facility. Under the emissions averaging 

compliance alternative, a facility with 

more than one existing kiln may average 

emissions across the kilns located at the 

facility provided that the emissions 

averaged do not exceed the limits 

included in table 7. 

TABLE 7—EMISSIONS AVERAGING COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE FOR HCL AND MERCURY

Pollutant 1 Kiln type 2 Stone produced 3

Emissions 

averaging 

alternative 

limit 

Unit of measure 

HCl ....................................... SR ........................................ DL, DB .................................. 2.1 lb/ton stone produced. 

SR ........................................ QL ......................................... 0.47 lb/ton stone produced. 

PR ........................................ DL, DB .................................. 0.36 lb/ton stone produced. 

PR ........................................ QL ......................................... 0.087 lb/ton stone produced. 

VK ........................................ DL, DB .................................. 0.36 lb/ton stone produced. 

VK ........................................ QL ......................................... 0.019 lb/ton stone produced. 

Mercury ................................ All ......................................... All .......................................... 31 lb/MMton stone produced. 

1 Hydrogen chloride (HCl), total hydrocarbon (THC), dioxin/furans (D/F). 

2Straight rotary kiln (SR), preheater rotary kiln (PR), vertical kiln (VK). 

3 Dolomitic lime (DL), quick lime (QL), dead burned dolomitic lime (DB). 

This emission limit reflects a 10 

percent adjustment factor to the MACT 

floor standard; according to our 

analysis, we expect this emission limit 

would result in reductions of HCL and 

mercury greater than those achieved by 

application of the MACT floor on a unitby-unit basis. 

We are proposing the emissions 

averaging compliance alternative for 

existing sources because we expect that 

it will result in a greater level of 

emissions reduction than the unit-byunit MACT floor limits at a lower cost 

per pound of pollutant removed, while 

also providing compliance flexibility. 

The proposed emissions averaging 

compliance alternative is available only 

to existing kilns in the same subcategory 

at lime manufacturing facilities. New or 

reconstructed sources would be subject 

to the unit-by-unit MACT floor 

standards and would be required to 

comply with those standards on a unitby-unit basis. 

This proposed emissions averaging 

program would have restrictions. First, 

emissions averaging would not be 

allowed between HCL and mercury 

emissions. Second, emissions averaging 

would only be permissible among 

individual existing affected units at a 

single lime manufacturing plant. Third, 

emissions averaging would only be 

permitted among kilns in the same 

subcategory. Lastly, new affected 

sources could not use emissions 

averaging for compliance purposes. 

Accordingly, we believe that this 

proposed emissions averaging program 

is consistent with the CAA. 

Emissions averaging also addresses 

those emission sources exhausting to a 

common stack. In a ‘‘common stack’’ 

scenario, a group of two or more 

existing units in the same subcategory 

that does not receive emissions from 

units in other subcategories or 

categories, a facility would treat such 

averaging group as a single existing unit 

for purposes of compliance with the 

requirements of the rule. 

We are also proposing to require each 

facility intending to use this emissions 

averaging program to develop a 

emissions averaging plan that identifies: 

(1) all units in the averaging group; (2) 

the control technology installed; (3) the 

process parameter(s) that will be 

monitored; (4) the specific control 

technology or pollution prevention 

measure to be used; (5) the test plan for 

measuring the HAP being averaged; and 

(6) the operating parameters to be 

monitored for each control device. 

We are proposing an emissions 

averaging compliance alternative 

because we expect that it will provide 

a more flexible and less costly 

alternative to controlling HCL and 

mercury emissions from the source 

category, and we expect it will result in 

greater annual reductions of HCL and 

mercury emissions from the source 

category than unit-by-unit compliance. 

We expect that the proposed emissions 

averaging compliance alternative as 

described above would not lessen the 

stringency of the overall MACT floor 

level of performance and would provide 

flexibility in compliance, cost, and 

energy savings to lime manufacturing 

facilities. We also recognize that we 

must ensure that any emissions 

averaging option can be implemented 

and enforced, will be clear to sources, 

and most importantly, will be no less 

stringent than unit-by-unit 

implementation of the MACT floor 

limits. 

Under the proposed emissions 

averaging compliance alternative, we 

expect that the 10 percent adjustment 

factor will ensure that the total quantity 

of HCl and mercury emitted from a 

facility’s kiln exhaust will not exceed 

the facility’s aggregate HCl emissions if 

its kilns individually complied with the 

unit-by-unit MACT floor standards. We 

expect that the practical outcome of 

emissions averaging will be emissions 

reductions equivalent to, or greater than, 

reductions achieved through 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

21Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 

F.3d 667, 672 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (‘‘Section 112(i)(3)’s 

3-year maximum compliance period applies 

generally to any emission standard . . . 

promulgated under [section 112]’’ (brackets in 

original)). 

compliance with the MACT floor limits 

for each discrete kiln on a unit-by-unit 

basis. Therefore, we expect that our 

proposed emissions averaging approach 

will result in the maximum achievable 

emissions reduction as required by 

statute. We request comment on 

allowing sources to comply with the 

HCL and mercury MACT standards 

through the proposed emissions 

averaging compliance alternative. We 

also request comment on the 

appropriate adjustment factor to apply 

under this proposed compliance 

alternative. 

G. What revisions to the compliance 

dates are we proposing? 

Amendments to the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP proposed in 

this rulemaking for adoption under CAA 

section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to 

the compliance deadlines outlined in 

the CAA under section 112(i). For 

existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) 

requires compliance ‘‘as expeditiously 

as practicable, but in no event later than 

3 years after the effective date of such 

standard’’ subject to certain exemptions 

further detailed in the statute.21 To 

establish a compliance period consistent 

with the statute, we consider the 

amount of time needed to plan and 

construct projects and change operating 

procedures. As provided in CAA section 

112(i), all new affected sources would 

comply with these provisions by the 

effective date of the final amendments 

to the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP or 

upon startup, whichever is later. The 

final action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2), so the 

effective date of the final rule will be the 

promulgation date as specified in CAA 

section 112(d)(10). 

The EPA projects that many existing 

sources would need to install add-on 

controls to comply with the proposed 

limits. These sources would require 

time to construct, conduct performance 

testing, and implement monitoring to 

comply with the revised provisions. 

Therefore, we are proposing to allow 3 

years from the effective date of the 

amendments to the NESHAP for existing 

lime manufacturing sources to come 

into compliance. 

For all affected sources that 

commence construction or 

reconstruction on or before January 5, 

2023, we are proposing to require 

compliance with the proposed 

standards within 3 years after the 

effective date of the final rule (or upon 

startup, whichever is later). For all 

affected sources that commenced 

construction or reconstruction after 

January 5, 2023, we are proposing that 

owners or operators comply with the 

provisions by the effective date of the 

final rule (or upon startup, whichever is 

later). 

IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

and Economic Impacts and Additional 

Analyses Conducted 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Currently, 34 major sources subject to 

the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP are 

operating in the United States. An 

affected source under the NESHAP is 

the owner or operator of a lime 

manufacturing plant that is a major 

source, or that is located at, or is a part 

of, a major source of HAP emissions, 

unless the lime manufacturing plant is 

located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp 

mill, sulfite pulp mill, beet sugar 

manufacturing plant, or only processes 

sludge containing calcium carbonate 

from water softening processes. A lime 

manufacturing plant is an establishment 

engaged in the manufacture of lime 

products (calcium oxide, calcium oxide 

with magnesium oxide, or dead burned 

dolomite) by calcination of limestone, 

dolomite, shells, or other calcareous 

substances. A major source of HAP is a 

plant site that emits or has the potential 

to emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 

megagrams (10 tons) or more, or any 

combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 

megagrams (25 tons) or more per year 

from all emission sources at the plant 

site. 

The Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 

applies to each existing or new lime kiln 

and their associated cooler(s). In 

addition, the NESHAP applies to each 

PSH operation located at the plant. This 

includes storage bins, conveying 

systems and transfer points, bulk 

loading and unloading operations, 

screening operations, surge bins, and 

bucket elevators. 

B. What are the air quality impacts? 

As with the January 5, 2023, proposed 

rule, this action proposes standards for 

HCl, mercury, organic HAP, and D/F 

that will limit emissions and require, in 

some cases, the installation of 

additional controls at lime 

manufacturing plants at major sources. 

Compliance with the emission 

standards set in this proposed rule will 

result in a combined reduction of total 

HAP of 905 tons of HAP per year. 

Specifically, installation of controls will 

reduce HCl emissions by 884 tpy. The 

installation of controls will reduce 

mercury emissions by 457 lbs per year 

(0.23 tpy). The installation of controls 

will reduce organic HAP emissions by 

20 tpy. Finally, the installation of 

controls will reduce D/F emissions by 

9.5×10¥5 lbs per year (4.7×10¥8 tpy). 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (e.g., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants). Energy impacts consist of 

the electricity and steam needed to 

operate control devices and other 

equipment. We find that the secondary 

impacts of this action are minimal. Refer 

to the ‘‘Lime Impacts Memorandum,’’ in 

the docket for a detailed discussion of 

the analyses performed on potential 

secondary impacts. (Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2017–0015). 

C. What are the cost impacts? 

This action proposes emission limits 

for new and existing sources in the lime 

manufacturing source category. 

Although the action contains 

requirements for new sources, we are 

not aware of any new sources being 

constructed now or planned in the next 

year, and, consequently, we did not 

estimate any cost impacts for new 

sources. We estimate the total 

annualized cost of the proposed rule to 

existing sources in the lime 

manufacturing source category to be 

$174,000,000 per year. The annual costs 

are expected to be based on operation 

and maintenance of the added control 

systems. A memorandum titled 

‘‘Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Floor Analysis for 

the Lime Manufacturing Plants Industry 

Supplemental Proposal’’ includes 

details of our cost assessment and is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0015). 

D. What are the economic impacts? 

For the proposed rule, the EPA 

estimated the cost of installing 

additional air pollution control devices 

in order to comply with the proposed 

emission limits. This includes both the 

capital costs of the initial installation 

and subsequent operation and 

maintenance costs. The assumed 

equipment life of the recommended 

controls for this NESHAP is twenty 

years. To assess the potential economic 

impacts, the expected annual cost was 

compared to the total sales revenue for 

the ultimate owners of affected 

facilities. For this rule, the expected 

annual cost is $5,200,0000 (on average) 

for each facility, with an estimated 

nationwide annual cost of $174,000,000 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9099 

22https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/ 

2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nationscommitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all. 

per year. The 34 affected facilities are 

owned by 11 parent companies, and the 

total costs associated with the proposed 

amendments are expected to be greater 

than 1 percent of annual sales revenue 

per ultimate owner. 

The EPA also prepared a small 

business screening assessment to 

determine if any of the identified 

affected entities are small entities, as 

defined by the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. This analysis is 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. Because the total costs 

associated with the proposed 

amendments are expected to be greater 

than 1 percent of annual sales revenue 

per owner in the lime manufacturing 

source category, there are economic 

impacts from these proposed 

amendments on the three affected 

facilities that are owned by small 

entities. Refer to section VII.C. of this 

preamble for a detailed description of 

the small business outreach and 

regulatory flexibility analysis performed 

in conjunction with this proposed rule. 

The EPA predicts that the affected 

sources in the lime manufacturing 

source category will be able to fully pass 

on their compliance costs to their 

customers. International trade of lime 

products is quite limited and there are 

no readily available cost-competitive 

substitutes for lime. Therefore, affected 

sources are not likely to face 

competition from foreign lime 

producers or from substitutes for their 

product. 

Information on our cost impact 

estimates on the sources in the lime 

manufacturing source category is 

available in the document titled, 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Supplemental Proposed Amendments to 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 

Manufacturing Plants,’’ which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

E. What are the benefits? 

The EPA did not monetize the 

benefits from the estimated emission 

reductions of HAP associated with this 

final action. The EPA currently does not 

have sufficient methods to monetize 

benefits associated with HAP, HAP 

reductions, and risk reductions for this 

rulemaking. However, we estimate that 

the final rule amendments would 

reduce emissions by 905 tons per year 

and thus lower risk of adverse health 

effects in communities near lime 

manufacturing plants. 

F. What analysis of environmental 

justice did we conduct? 

The results of the demographic 

analysis performed alongside the 

January 5, 2023, proposed amendments 

remain unchanged as a result of this 

supplemental proposal. For 

convenience, the demographic analysis 

is repeated in this preamble for the 

public’s information. 

The EPA defines environmental 

justice (EJ) as ‘‘the just treatment and 

meaningful involvement of all people 

regardless of income, race, color, 

national origin, Tribal affiliation, or 

disability, in agency decision-making 

and other Federal activities that affect 

human health and the environment so 

that people (i) are fully protected from 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health and environmental effects 

(including risk) and hazards, including 

those related to climate change, the 

cumulative impacts of environmental 

and other burdens, and the legacy of 

racism or other structural or systemic 

barriers; and (ii) have equitable access to 

a healthy, sustainable, and resilient 

environment in which to live, play, 

work, grow, worship, and engage in 

cultural and subsistence practices’’.22 In 

recognizing that particular communities 

often bear an unequal burden of 

environmental harms and risks, the EPA 

continues to consider ways of to 

advance environmental justice and of 

protecting communities with from 

disproportionate adverse public health 

and environmental effects of air 

pollution. 

To examine the potential for any EJ 

issues that might be associated with 

lime manufacturing facilities, we 

performed a proximity demographic 

analysis, which is an assessment of 

individual demographic groups of the 

populations living within 5 km (∼3.1 

miles) and 50 km (∼31 miles) of the 

facilities. The EPA then compared the 

data from this analysis to the national 

average for each of the demographic 

groups. In this preamble, we focus on 

the proximity results for the populations 

living within 5 km (∼3.1 miles) of the 

facilities. The results of this proximity 

analysis for populations living within 

50 km are included in the document 

titled ‘‘Analysis of Demographic Factors 

for Populations Living Near Lime 

Manufacturing Facilities’’, which is 

available in the docket for this action. 

The results (see table 8) show that for 

populations within 5 km of the 34 Lime 

Manufacturing facilities, the following 

demographic groups were above the 

national average: Hispanic/Latino (37 

percent versus 19 percent nationally), 

linguistically isolated households 21 

percent versus 5 percent nationally), 

people living below the poverty level 

(27 percent versus 13 percent 

nationally), people of color (50 percent 

versus 40 percent nationally, and people 

without a high school diploma (17 

percent versus 12 percent nationally). A 

summary of the proximity demographic 

assessment performed for the major 

source lime manufacturing facilities is 

included as table 8. The methodology 

and the results of the demographic 

analysis are presented in a technical 

report, Analysis of Demographic Factors 

for Populations Living Near Lime 

Manufacturing Facilities, available in 

this docket for this action (Docket ID 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). 

TABLE 8—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MAJOR SOURCE LIME MANUFACTURING FACILITIES

Demographic group Nationwide Population within 5 km of 

facilities 

Total Population .................................................................................................................. 328,016,242 ..................... 473,343. 

Race and Ethnicity by Percent 

White ................................................................................................................................... 60 percent ........................ 50 percent. 

Black ................................................................................................................................... 12 percent ........................ 9 percent. 

Native American .................................................................................................................. 0.7 percent ....................... 0.9 percent. 

Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite) .............................................................. 19 percent ........................ 37 percent. 

Other and Multiracial ........................................................................................................... 8 percent .......................... 3 percent. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—PROXIMITY DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MAJOR SOURCE LIME MANUFACTURING FACILITIES— 

Continued 

Demographic group Nationwide Population within 5 km of 

facilities 

Income by Percent 

Below Poverty Level ........................................................................................................... 13 percent ........................ 27 percent. 

Above Poverty Level ........................................................................................................... 87 percent ........................ 73 percent. 

Education by Percent 

Over 25 and without a High School Diploma ..................................................................... 12 percent ........................ 17 percent. 

Over 25 and with a High School Diploma .......................................................................... 88 percent ........................ 83 percent. 

Linguistically Isolated by Percent 

Linguistically Isolated .......................................................................................................... 5 percent .......................... 21 percent. 

Notes: 

• Nationwide population and demographic percentages are based on the Census’ 2015–2019 American Community Survey 5-year block group 

averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population counts within 5 km of 

all facilities are based on the 2010 Decennial Census block populations. 

• Minority population is the total population minus the white population. 

• To avoid double counting, the ‘‘Hispanic or Latino’’ category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is 

identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, Black, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who 

identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in 

the Census. 

The human health risk estimated for 

this source category for the July 24, 

2020, RTR (85 FR 44960) was 

determined to be acceptable, and the 

standards were determined to provide 

an ample margin of safety to protect 

public health. Specifically, the 

maximum individual cancer risk was 1- 

in-1 million for actual emissions (2-in1 million for allowable emissions) and 

the noncancer hazard indices for 

chronic exposure were well below 1 

(0.04 for actual emissions, 0.05 for 

allowable emissions). The noncancer 

hazard quotient for acute exposure was 

0.6, also below 1. The proposed changes 

to the NESHAP subpart AAAAA will 

reduce emissions by 905 tons of HAP 

per year, and therefore, further improve 

human health exposures for the 

populations and individuals most 

exposed to this pollution, including 

communities with environmental justice 

concerns . The proposed changes will 

have beneficial effects on air quality and 

public health for populations exposed to 

emissions from lime manufacturing 

facilities. 

G. What analysis of children’s 

environmental health did we conduct? 

In the July 24, 2020, final Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP RTR (85 FR 

44960), the EPA conducted a residual 

risk assessment and determined that 

risk from the lime manufacturing source 

category was acceptable, and the 

standards provided an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health. This 

action proposes first-time emissions 

standards for HCl, mercury, organic 

HAP, and D/F. Specifically, compliance 

with the emission standards set in this 

proposed rule will result in a combined 

reduction of total HAP of 905 tons of 

HAP per year. 

This action’s health and risk 

assessments are protective of the most 

vulnerable populations, including 

children, due to how we determine 

exposure and through the health 

benchmarks that we use. Specifically, 

the risk assessments we perform assume 

a lifetime of exposure, in which 

populations are conservatively 

presumed to be exposed to airborne 

concentrations at their residence 

continuously, 24 hours per day for a 70- 

year lifetime, including childhood. With 

regards to children’s potentially greater 

susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, 

the assessments rely on the EPA’s (or 

comparable) hazard identification and 

dose-response values that have been 

developed to be protective for all 

subgroups of the general population, 

including children. For more 

information on the risk assessment 

methods, see the risk report for the 2020 

RTR rule, which is available in the 

docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2017–0015). 

V. Request for Comments 

We solicit comments on all aspects of 

this proposed action. In addition to 

general comments on this proposed 

action, we are also interested in 

additional data that may improve the 

analyses. We are specifically interested 

in receiving any information regarding 

developments in practices, processes, 

and control technologies that reduce 

HAP emissions. We request comment on 

the assumptions regarding the costs of 

capital, work practices, and emissions. 

We request comment of all aspects of 

the economic impacts of this proposal. 

VI. Submitting Data Corrections 

The site-specific emissions data used 

in setting MACT standards for HCl, 

mercury, organic HAP, and D/F, as 

emitted from the lime manufacturing 

source category, are provided in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0015). 

If you believe that the data are not 

representative or are inaccurate, please 

identify the data in question, provide 

your reason for concern, and provide 

any ‘‘improved’’ data that you have, if 

available. When you submit data, we 

request that you provide documentation 

of the basis for the revised values to 

support your suggested changes. For 

information on how to submit 

comments, including the submittal of 

data corrections, refer to the instructions 

provided in the introduction of this 

preamble. 

VII. 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 13563 Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

12866, as amended by Executive Order 

14094. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9101 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 

12866 review. Documentation of any 

changes made in response to the 

Executive Order 12866 review is 

available in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

potential impacts associated with this 

action. This analysis is included in the 

document titled, Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed 

Amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Lime Manufacturing Plants and is also 

available in the docket. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2072.10. You can find 

a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

We are proposing changes to the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the Lime 

Manufacturing Plants NESHAP by 

incorporating the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements associated 

with the new and existing source MACT 

standards for HCl, mercury, THC, and 

D/F. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners or operators of lime 

manufacturing plants that are major 

sources, or that are located at, or are part 

of, major sources of HAP emissions, 

unless the lime manufacturing plant is 

located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp 

mill, sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet 

manufacturing plant, or only processes 

sludge containing calcium carbonate 

from water softening processes. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAAA). 

Estimated number of respondents: On 

average over the next 3 years, 

approximately 34 existing major sources 

will be subject to these standards. It is 

also estimated that no additional 

respondent will become subject to the 

emission standards over the 3-year 

period. 

Frequency of response: The frequency 

of responses varies depending on the 

burden item. 

Total estimated burden: The average 

annual burden to industry over the next 

3 years from the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements is estimated to be 8.392 

hours per year. Burden is defined at 5 

CFR 1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: The annual 

recordkeeping and reporting costs for all 

facilities to comply with all of the 

requirements in the NESHAP is 

estimated to be $3,570,000 per year, of 

which $1,370,000 (first year) is for this 

rule, and the rest is for other costs 

related to continued compliance with 

the current NESHAP requirements 

including $1,005,000 in annualized 

capital and operation and maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit 

your comments on the Agency’s need 

for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden to the EPA using the 

docket identified at the beginning of this 

rule. The EPA will respond to any ICRrelated comments in the final rule. You 

may also send your ICR-related 

comments to OMB’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

using the interface at https://

www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 

Find this particular information 

collection by selecting ‘‘Currently under 

Review—Open for Public Comments’’ or 

by using the search function. OMB must 

receive comments no later than April 9, 

2024. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, 

the EPA prepared an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines 

the impact of the proposed rule on small 

entities along with regulatory 

alternatives that could minimize that 

impact. The complete IRFA is included 

as section 6.3 of the document titled, 

Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

Supplemental Proposed Amendments to 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 

Manufacturing Plants, for review in the 

docket and is summarized here. 

As discussed in section II.A. of this 

preamble, the statutory authority for this 

action is provided by sections 112 and 

301 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

7401 et seq.). The EPA is proposing to 

revise the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 

by establishing new emission standards 

for this source category, exercising 

authority under multiple provisions of 

section 112 of the CAA. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, a small 

entity is defined as a small business in 

the lime manufacturing industry whose 

parent company has revenues or 

numbers of employees below the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) Size 

Standards for the relevant NAICS code. 

We have identified 8 different NAICS 

codes of the parent companies within 

this source category. A complete list of 

those NAICS codes and SBA Size 

Standards is available in section 6.2.1 of 

the document titled, Regulatory Impact 

Analysis for the Supplemental Proposed 

Amendments to the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Lime Manufacturing Plants which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. This supplemental proposal 

contains provisions that would affect 

approximately 2 small entities. Under 

the proposed rule requirements, small 

entities would be required to comply 

with the emission standards of four 

previously unregulated pollutants, 

which may require the use of new air 

pollution control devices. Small entities 

would also need to demonstrate 

compliance with the emission standards 

through periodic performance testing. 

This supplemental proposal includes 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

administrative requirements. The EPA 

estimates that the two identified small 

entities could incur total annual costs 

associated with the proposal that are at 

least 3 percent of their annual revenues. 

Considering the level of total annual 

costs relative to annual sales for these 

small entities, the EPA determined that 

there is potential for the proposed 

requirements to have a ‘Significant 

Impact on a Substantial Number of 

Small Entities’ (SISNOSE). See section 

6.2.2 of the document titled, Regulatory 

Impact Analysis for the Supplemental 

Proposed Amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants 

for more information on the 

characterization of the impacts to small 

businesses under the proposed rule. 

As required by section 609(b) of the 

RFA, the EPA also convened a Small 

Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) 

Panel to obtain advice and 

recommendations from small entity 

representatives (SERs) that potentially 

would be subject to the rule’s 

requirements. On August 3, 2023, the 

EPA’s Small Business Advocacy 

Chairperson convened the Panel, which 

consisted of the Chairperson, the 

Director of the Sector Policies and 

Programs Division within the EPA’s 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs within OMB, and the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). 

Prior to convening the Panel, the EPA 

conducted outreach and solicited 

comments from the SERs. After the 

Panel was convened, the Panel provided 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
9102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

23https://www.epa.gov/children/childrenshealth-policy-and-plan. 

additional information to the SERs and 

requested their input. The Panel’s 

review identified several significant 

alternatives for consideration by the 

Administrator of the EPA which 

accomplish the stated objectives of the 

CAA and minimize economic impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities. 

The SBAR Panel recommended 

several flexibilities including the 

consideration of health-based standards 

for HCl, an IQV for mercury, an 

aggregated organic HAP emission 

standard, and work practice standards 

for D/F. The EPA is including some of 

these flexibilities as a part of this 

supplemental proposal and is soliciting 

comment on others that may be 

considered for the final rule. The report 

was finalized and transmitted to the 

EPA Administrator for consideration. A 

copy of the full SBAR Panel Report is 

available in the docket of this 

rulemaking. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more 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. 

E. 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. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The EPA does not know of 

any lime manufacturing facilities owned 

or operated by Indian Tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 directs Federal 

agencies to include an evaluation of the 

health and safety effects of the planned 

regulation on children in Federal health 

and safety standards and explain why 

the regulation is preferable to 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866, and because the EPA does 

not believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this action 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. This action proposes emission 

standards for four previously 

unregulated pollutants; therefore, the 

rule proposes health benefits to children 

by reducing the level of HAP emissions 

emitted from the lime manufacturing 

process. 

However, the EPA’s Policy on 

Children’s Health applies to this action. 

This action is subject to the EPA’s 

Policy on Children’s Health 23 because 

the proposed rule has considerations for 

human health. Information on how the 

policy was applied is available in 

section V.F. ‘‘What analysis of 

children’s environmental health did we 

conduct’’ of this preamble. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. In 

this proposed action, the EPA is setting 

emission standards for previously 

unregulated pollutant. This does not 

impact energy supply, distribution, or 

use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 

Part 51 

This action involves technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA 

conducted searches for the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP through the 

Enhanced National Standards Systems 

Network (NSSN) Database managed by 

the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a 

review of voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) organizations and 

accessed and searched their databases. 

We conducted searches for EPA 

Methods 23, 25A, 29, 30B, 320, and 321. 

During the EPA’s VCS search, if the title 

or abstract (if provided) of the VCS 

described technical sampling and 

analytical procedures that are similar to 

the EPA’s referenced method, the EPA 

ordered a copy of the standard and 

reviewed it as a potential equivalent 

method. We reviewed all potential 

standards to determine the practicality 

of the VCS for this rule. This review 

requires significant method validation 

data that meet the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering, and 

policy equivalence to procedures in the 

EPA referenced methods. The EPA may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for any 

particular VCS. 

Two VCS were identified as 

acceptable alternatives to the EPA test 

methods for this proposed rule. The 

VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas 

Generated from Coal-Fired Stationary 

Sources (Ontario Hydro Method)’’ is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 

(portion for mercury only) as a method 

for measuring mercury. The VCS ASTM 

D6348–12e1, ‘‘Determination of Gaseous 

Compounds by Extractive Direct 

Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) 

Spectroscopy’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to EPA Method 320 with 

certain conditions. Detailed information 

on the VCS search and determination 

can be found in the memorandum, 

‘‘Voluntary Consensus Standard Results 

for National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime 

Manufacturing Technology Review’’, 

which is available in the docket for this 

action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2017–0015). 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ASTM D6348–12e1, 

‘‘Determination of Gaseous Compounds 

by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier 

Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,’’ as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

320. ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 

2010) was determined to be equivalent 

to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM 

D6348–12e1 is a revised version of 

ASTM D6348–03 (Reapproved 2010) 

and includes a new section on accepting 

the results from the direct measurement 

of a certified spike gas cylinder, but 

lacks the caveats placed on the ASTM 

D6348–03(2010) version. ASTM D6348– 

12e1 is an extractive FTIR field test 

method used to quantify gas phase 

concentrations of multiple analytes from 

stationary source effluent and is an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

320 at this time with caveats requiring 

inclusion of selected annexes to the 

standard as mandatory. When using 

ASTM D6348–12e1, the following 

conditions must be met: 

• The test plan preparation and 

implementation in the Annexes to 

ASTM D6348–03, sections A1 through 

A8 are mandatory; and 

• In ASTM D6348–03, Annex A5 

(Analyte Spiking Technique), the 

percent (%) R must be determined for 

each target analyte (Equation A5.5). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 28 / Friday, February 9, 2024 / Proposed Rules 9103 

In order for the test data to be 

acceptable for a compound, percent R 

must be 70 percent ≥ R ≤ 130 percent. 

If the percent R value does not meet this 

criterion for a target compound, the test 

data is not acceptable for that 

compound and the test must be repeated 

for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/ 

or analytical procedure should be 

adjusted before a retest). The percent R 

value for each compound must be 

reported in the test report, and all field 

measurements must be corrected with 

the calculated percent R value for that 

compound by using the following 

equation: 

Reported Results = ((Measured 

Concentration in Stack))/(percent R) × 

100. 

The EPA is incorporating by reference 

the VCS ASTM D6784–16, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Elemental, Oxidized, 

Particle-Bound and Total Mercury in 

Flue Gas Generated from Coal-Fired 

Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro 

Method),’’ as an acceptable alternative 

to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury 

only) as a method for measuring 

elemental, oxidized, particle-bound, and 

total mercury concentrations ranging 

from approximately 0.5 to 100 

micrograms per normal cubic meter. 

This test method describes equipment 

and procedures for obtaining samples 

from effluent ducts and stacks, 

equipment and procedures for 

laboratory analysis, and procedures for 

calculating results. VCS ASTM D6784– 

16 allows for additional flexibility in the 

sampling and analytical procedures for 

the earlier version of the same standard 

VCS ASTM D6784–02 (Reapproved 

2008). 

ASTM D6784–16 and ASTM D6348– 

12e1 are available at ASTM 

International, 1850 M Street NW, Suite 

1030, Washington, DC 20036. See 

https://www.astm.org/. The standards 

are available to everyone at a cost 

determined by ASTM ($82). The costs of 

obtaining these methods are not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

methods reasonably available. 

Additionally, the EPA is 

incorporating by reference EPA/100/R– 

10/005, ‘‘Recommended Toxicity 

Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human 

Health Risk Assessments of 2, 3, 7, 8- 

Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and 

Dioxin-Like Compounds,’’ December 

2010, which is the source of the toxicity 

equivalence factors (TEF) for dioxins 

and furans used in calculating the toxic 

equivalence quotient of the proposed 

dioxin and furan standard. This 

document describes the EPA’s updated 

approach for evaluating the human 

health risks from exposures to 

environmental media containing dioxinlike compounds. The EPA recommends 

that the TEF methodology, a component 

mixture method, be used to evaluate 

human health risks posed by these 

mixtures, using TCDD as the index 

chemical. The EPA recommends the use 

of the consensus TEF values for 2,3,7,8- 

tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and dioxinlike compounds published in 2005 by 

the World Health Organization. EPA/ 

100/R–10/005 is available on the EPA 

website, https://www.epa.gov/risk/ 

documents-recommended-toxicityequivalency-factors-human-health-riskassessments-dioxin-and. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal

Actions To Address Environmental

Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations and LowIncome Populations and Executive

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s

Commitment to Environmental Justice

for All

The EPA believes that the human 

health or environmental conditions that 

exist prior to this action result in or 

have the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

communities with environmental justice 

(EJ) concerns. The assessment of 

populations in close proximity of lime 

manufacturing facilities shows Hispanic 

and linguistically isolated groups are 

higher than the national average (see 

section V.E. of the preamble). The 

higher percentages are driven by 4 of the 

34 facilities in the source category. 

The EPA believes that this action is 

likely to reduce existing 

disproportionate and adverse effects on 

communities with EJ concerns. The EPA 

is proposing MACT standards for HCl, 

mercury, organic HAP, and D/F. The 

EPA expects that the 4 facilities would 

have to implement control measures to 

reduce emissions to comply with the 

MACT standards and that HAP 

exposures for the people of color and 

low-income individuals living near 

these facilities would decrease. 

The EPA will additionally identify 

and address environmental justice 

concerns by conducting outreach after 

signature of this proposed rule. The EPA 

will address this rule during the 

monthly Environmental Justice call for 

communities burdened by 

disproportionate environmental 

impacts. 

The information supporting these 

Executive Orders is contained in section 

V.E. of this preamble.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–02299 Filed 2–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0069; FRL–10579–12– 

OCSPP] 

Receipt of a Pesticide Petition Filed for 

Residues of Pesticide Chemicals in or 

on Various Commodities (December 

2023) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petition and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of an initial filing of a 

pesticide petition requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 11, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2023–0069, 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. Do not submit electronically 

any information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Additional 

instructions on commenting and visiting 

the docket, along with more information 

about dockets generally, is available at 

https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Madison H. Le, Biopesticides and 

Pollution Prevention Division (BPPD) 

(7511M), main telephone number: (202) 

566–1400, email address: 

BPPDFRNotices@epa.gov; or Dan 

Rosenblatt, Registration Division (RD) 

(7505T), main telephone number: (202) 

566–2875, email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing 

address for each contact person is Office 

of Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

As part of the mailing address, include 

the contact person’s name, division, and 

mail code. The division to contact is 

listed at the end of each application 

summary. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1