1. PM From the Kiln and Cooler Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct a PM performance test and concurrently measure the stone feed rate to the kiln during the test. If you operate a lime cooler associated with the kiln being tested that has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere, you would be required to conduct a Method 5 ( 40 CFR part 60, appendix A   3) test on the cooler's exhaust concurrently with the kiln Method 5 test. Method 5 is the long standing EPA method for measuring PM emissions from stationary sources. For each kiln with an ESP, if you choose to monitor ESP operating parameters in lieu of using a PM detector or a COMS, you would be required to collect and record the input voltage and current to each electrical field of the ESP during the PM performance test, and then determine the 3 hour operating limit for each parameter for each electrical field based on these data. We expect that most lime manufacturing plants with ESP already monitor the electrical current and voltage, which provides an indication of the ESP performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3 hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP as established during the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. A 3 hour rolling average was selected to be consistent with the usual 3 hour time required for the PM test ( three test runs of at least 1 hour). You would also have the option of monitoring PM emissions from an ESP with a PM detector, in lieu of monitoring ESP parameters. Sources may determine that this would allow them greater operational flexibility. These devices would be similar to the BLDS for FF, which are discussed below, but they are based on light scattering technology ( and not the triboelectric technology). For each kiln with a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test, and then establish the 3 hour operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate are the scrubber operating parameters most often monitored and provide an indication of the scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For continuous compliance demonstrations, you would be required to maintain the 3 hour rolling average pressure drop and flow rate greater than or equal to the operating limit established for these parameters during the performance test. You would be required to collect and reduce the data as previously described. For kilns and lime coolers ( if the cooler has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere) controlled by a FF, if you choose not to use a COMS, you would be required to install a BLDS. These systems are usually based on either triboelectric, electrodynamic, or light scattering technology and provide an indication of relative changes in particle mass loading. Leaks in filter bags or similar failures can be detected early enough to warn if additional inspection and preventative maintenance are needed to avoid major FF failures and excessive emissions. When the system detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level, an alarm sounds automatically. The FF would be required to then be inspected to determine if corrective action is necessary. We believe that the monitoring of PM via BLDS is more appropriate, i. e., a better technique, than monitoring FF operating parameters such as pressure drop. Some other MACT standards require the use of these types of monitors. It should be noted that BLDS would also be required on positive pressure FF, which typically have multiple stacks. We specifically seek comment on the feasibility, practicality, and cost of using BLDS for these types of FF; and on alternative monitoring options for positive pressure FF that will provide a continuous indication of a kiln or cooler's compliance status with regard to PM. We also seek comment on whether EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A   4 ( manual observation of opacity) should be allowed in lieu of BLDS for positive pressure FF. We are soliciting comment on requiring the application of PM continuous emission monitoring systems ( CEMS) as a method to assure continuous compliance with the proposed PM emission limits for lime kilns and coolers. Specifically, we are soliciting comment on the cost of PM CEMS, and the relation of a PM CEMS requirement to the PM emission limits that are proposed today. This includes the level and averaging time of a CEMSbased PM emission limit, the methodology for deriving the limit from the available data for lime kilns, and any additional emissions reductions that could be expected as a result of using a PM CEMS. We have continued to learn about the capabilities and performance of PM CEMS through performing and witnessing field evaluations and through discussions with our European counterparts. We believe there is sound evidence that PM CEMS should work on lime kilns. See the revisions we made to the performance specification for PM CEMS ( Performance Specification 11 ( PS   11), 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, and Procedure 2, 40 CFR part 60, appendix F) at 66 FR 64176, December 12, 2001. During the review of a draft of the proposed rule by the SBAR Panel, small entity representatives and some Panel members requested that we consider allowing COMS in lieu of requiring BLDS and other monitoring requirements for PM. The proposed rule would allow the use of COMS as an alternative to BLDS, PM detectors, or the monitoring of ESP operating parameters. However, we request summary data on lime kiln opacity levels measured with a COMS, and we request information on the applicability, advantages, and disadvantages of using COMS and BLDS ( such as each method's sensitivity or lack of sensitivity, availability and quality of promulgated or approved specifications and procedures to verify initial performance, potential interferences or other quality assurance problems, inapplicability to certain APCD designs or configurations, cost, and precision and accuracy relative to the operating system to be monitored and the standards to be proposed). The proposed rule would allow sources with FF or ESP to comply with a 15 percent opacity operating limit, as an alternative to using a BLDS, a PM detector, or the use of ESP operating parameters. We request comment on using a COMS to monitor opacity as an emission limit ( which would act as a surrogate for HAP metals emissions), rather than as an operating limit, and what an appropriate MACT floor opacity limit would be. The range of opacity levels under consideration as the MACT floor opacity limit for lime kilns would be between 10 and 15 percent. Sensitivity for COMS is dependent on the path length that the light beam measures; the longer the path length, the more sensitive the measurement. Performance Specification 1 ( PS   1), 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B, gives the performance criteria for COMS used to measure opacity for opacity limitation standards VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78063 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules but we recognize that there are potential measurement errors associated with monitoring opacity in stacks, especially for emission units subject to opacity limits less than 10 percent. The uncertainties in measurement accuracy result from the following: ( 1) The unavailability of calibration attenuators for opacity levels below 6 percent; ( 2) the error associated with the calibration error allowances, the zero and upscale drift specifications, the mandatory drift adjustment levels, and the imprecision associated with the allowed compensation for dirt accumulation; and ( 3) the minimum full scale range of 80 percent required of COMS in PS   1. Because of these aforementioned limitations, COMS are generally considered good `` catastrophic'' control equipment indicators using opacity generally above levels greater than 10 percent opacity. A 15 percent opacity level is the opacity limit under the NSPS for lime kilns ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart HH) and based on a preliminary analysis, may also be the median opacity permit limit for the six top performing lime kilns. In addition, the NLA provided information indicating that the opacity level of one of the top performing lime kilns ( in terms of PM emissions and permit limit) often varies between 10 and 15 percent. Finally, we acknowledge that other MACT standards, such as the Petroleum Refinery MACT ( 67 FR 17761) and the Secondary Aluminum MACT ( 65 FR 15690), have allowed the use of COMS. In the Petroleum Refinery MACT, the rule allows sources the option to comply with the NSPS ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart J) emission limitations ( which includes various opacity limits for certain emission units) in order to comply with the MACT standard. Another approach to using a COMS that was raised by some SBAR Panel members was to use it in a way similar to how a BLDS would be used to indicate the need for inspection and maintenance of the PM control device. Under this approach, we would specify a time period over which a significant increase in opacity level would trigger inspection of the PM control device for leaks or other malfunctions and maintenance ( if needed). We recognize that the COMS currently being used in the lime manufacturing industry have a potential for error at opacities below 10 percent, and that the relevant range of opacities for the aforementioned application would be below 10 percent. If COMS were allowed under the final rule, we would prefer to set an opacity limit because of the COMS' ability to directly measure opacity, instead of using the COMS in the aforementioned way ( i. e., similar to how a BLDS would be used). However, we solicit comment on this option, specifically including comments regarding the opacity levels expected from a kiln in compliance with the proposed PM limit and the sensitivity of COMS at those levels. In accordance with the SBAR Panel's recommendations, we request comment on whether the proposed rule should specify separate, longer averaging time periods ( or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits, or other alternative approaches for demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits. For example, the Panel recommended that we request comment on an approach for demonstrating compliance involving two tiers of standards for monitoring operating parameters whereby, if the conditions of the first monitoring tier are exceeded, the facility operator would be required to implement corrective actions specified in an established plan to bring the operating parameter levels back to established levels and, if the conditions of the second tier are exceeded, the exceedance would constitute a violation of the standard in question. The SBAR Panel recommended that we take comment about the suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that could be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits in lieu of or in addition to the parameters proposed in today's rule. For example, small entity representatives suggested that for scrubber equipped kilns, we should consider allowing the monitoring of parameters such as wet scrubber water pump amperage and wet scrubber exhaust gas outlet temperature in lieu of scrubber liquid flow rate. In addition, sources may request approval of alternative monitoring methods according to section 40 CFR 63.8( f).

2. PM From MPO Since the MACT basis for these emission units is the NSPS subpart OOO, the performance test requirements for PM, opacity, and visible emissions are based in part on those in the NSPS subpart OOO, with additional requirements as well. Further, as is required under the NSPS subpart OOO, the proposed rule would require the performance test measurement of opacity from certain MPO, including fugitive emission units, using EPA Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. We request comment on the suitability of using Method 9 for fugitive emission units, and whether other visual opacity measurement methods or techniques may be more suitable, such as provisions from proposed EPA Methods 203A, 203B, and/ or 203C, 58 FR 61640, January 6, 1994. For MPO subject to a PM emission limit and controlled by a wet scrubber, you would be required to collect and record the exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubber liquid flow rate during the PM performance test and then establish the 3 hour operating limit for each of these parameters based on the data. Pressure drop and flow rate provide an indication of the scrubber's performance and consequently PM emissions as well. For MPO subject to opacity limitations which do not use a wet scrubber control device, you would be required to conduct a 1 minute visible emissions check of each emission unit similar to the requirements under Method 22, 40 CFR part 60, appendix A7. The frequency of these checks is monthly but diminishes for the emission unit if no visible emissions are observed. If visible emissions are observed during any visible emissions check, you would be required to conduct a 6 minute test of opacity in accordance with Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. The Method 9 test would be required to begin within 1 hour of any observation of visible emissions and the 6 minute opacity reading would be required to not exceed the applicable opacity limit. Due to the many MPO at each lime manufacturing plant, this type of periodic monitoring for opacity was selected. This periodic approach to monitoring rewards sources that have no visible emissions by allowing the frequency of testing to be reduced. Finally, this monitoring approach ( visual observations of opacity instead of continuous opacity monitoring systems) is similar to the monitoring regime used in the NSPS subpart OOO, which is the basis for MACT. Although we are not compelled to use identical monitoring regimes, we believe it is appropriate to do so here because it will `` reasonably ensure compliance with the standard.'' See National Lime, 233 F. 3d at 635.

3. Other General Requirements The operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan would be required to ensure effective performance of the air pollution control devices, monitoring equipment ( including bag leak and PM detection equipment), and to minimize malfunctions.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78064 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts A. How Many Facilities Are Subject to the Proposed Rule?

There are approximately 110 lime manufacturing plants in the U. S., not including lime production facilities at pulp and paper mills. About 30 of these 110 plants are located at beet sugar manufacturing facilities which would not be subject to the proposed rule. We estimate that 70 percent of the remaining 80 lime manufacturing plants would be major sources, co located with major sources, or part of major sources, and, thus, 56 lime manufacturing plants would be subject to this proposed rule. B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

We estimate that all sources ( not including lime manufacturing plants at beet sugar factories) in the lime manufacturing source category collectively emit approximately 9,700 Mg/ yr ( 10,700 tons/ yr) of HAP. These HAP estimates include emissions of HCl and HAP metals from existing sources and projected new sources over the next 5 years. We estimate that the proposed standards would reduce HAP metals emissions from the lime manufacturing source category by about 21 Mg/ yr ( 23 tons/ yr), and would reduce HCl emissions by about 213 Mg/ yr ( 235 tons/ yr). In addition, we estimate that the proposed standards would reduce PM emissions by about 14,000 Mg/ yr ( 16,000 tons/ yr) from a baseline level of 29,000 Mg/ yr ( 32,000 tons/ yr), and the proposed standards would reduce SO2 emissions by about 3,400 Mg/ yr ( 3,700 tons/ yr) from a baseline of 128,000 Mg/ yr ( 141,000 tons/ yr). The roughly 2 percent decrease in HCl and SO2 emissions is the projected result of uncontrolled sources installing baghouses to comply with the proposed PM standards. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the baseline emissions and emissions reductions ( or increases, in parentheses) estimates, in English and Metric units, respectively.

TABLE 1.   TOTAL NATIONAL BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BOTH NEW AND EXISTING LIME MANUFACTURING PLANTS [ English Units]

Emissions PM ( tons/ yr) HAP metals ( tons/ yr) HCl ( tons/ yr) SO2 ( tons/ yr)

Baseline emissions   existing sources .......................................................................... 24,352 31.5 8,541 112,198 Baseline emissions   new sources ................................................................................ 7,508 10.1 2,161 28,779 Total baseline emissions ............................................................................................... 31,861 41.6 10,702 140,977 Emissions reductions   existing sources ...................................................................... 12,407 17.7 235 3,700 Emissions reductions   new sources ............................................................................. 3,154 5.4 0 0 Total emissions reductions ............................................................................................ 15,561 23 235 3,700 TABLE 2.   TOTAL NATIONAL BASELINE EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FOR BOTH NEW AND EXISTING LIME MANUFACTURING PLANTS [ Metric Units]

Emissions PM ( Mg/ yr) HAP metals ( Mg/ yr) HCl ( Mg/ yr) SO2 ( Mg/ yr)

Baseline emissions   existing sources .......................................................................... 22,093 28.6 7,748 101,787 Baseline emissions   new sources ................................................................................ 6,811 9.2 1,961 26,108 Total baseline emissions ............................................................................................... 28,904 38 9,709 127,895 Emissions reductions   existing sources ....................................................................... 11,256 16 213 3,356 Emissions reductions   new sources ............................................................................. 2,861 4.9 0 0 Total emissions reductions ............................................................................................ 14,117 21 213 3,356 C. What Are the Water Impacts? We expect overall water consumption for existing sources to increase by about 4,200 million gallons per year from current levels as a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet scrubbers ( that require more water flow rate) to comply with the PM standards. For new sources, we expect no additional water consumption as we do not expect new sources to install wet scrubbers for PM control.

D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts? As a result of the proposed rule, solid waste would be generated as additional PM is collected in complying with the PM standards. We estimate that about 16,000 tons/ yr of additional solid waste would be generated as a result of today's proposed rule. This estimate does not include consideration that some of this would most likely be recycled directly to the lime kiln as feedstock or sold as byproduct material ( agricultural lime).

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

We expect electricity demand from existing sources to increase by about 7.2 million kilowatt hours/ yr ( kWh/ yr) as a result of the proposed rule. This estimate is based on the assumption that sources will replace existing wet scrubbers with new, more efficient venturi wet scrubbers ( that require more electricity). For new sources, we expect an increase in electricity usage of about 0.1 million kWh/ yr as a result of the proposed rule. This electricity demand is associated with complying with the PM standards for new sources.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The estimated total national capital cost of today's proposed rule is $ 24.2 million ( for large businesses) plus $ 11.9 million for small businesses for a total of $ 36.1 million. This capital cost applies to projected new and existing sources and includes the cost to purchase and install emissions control equipment ( e. g., existing PM control equipment upgrades), monitoring equipment ( the cost of the rule is estimated assuming bag leak and PM detectors would be installed on all lime kilns located at major sources, although other monitoring options are available, such as COMS), the costs of initial performance tests, and emissions tests VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 17: 06 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78065 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules to measure HCl to determine whether a source is a major source and hence subject to the standards. The estimated annualized costs of the proposed standards are $ 22.4 million. The annualized costs account for the annualized capital costs of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and maintenance costs, periodic monitoring of materials handling operations, and annualized costs of the initial emissions testing.

G. What Are the Economic Impacts?

The results of our economic impact analysis indicate the average price per ton for lime would increase by 2.1 percent ( or $ 1.17 per metric ton) as a result of the proposed standard for lime manufacturers. Overall lime production is projected to decrease by 1.8 percent as a result of the proposed standard. Because of the uncertainty of control cost information for large firms, we accounted for these firms as a single aggregate firm in the economic model, so it is not plausible to estimate closures for large firms. However, among the 19 small firms in this industry, we project that two firms are at risk for closure. Based on the market analysis, we project the annual social costs of the proposed rule to be $ 20.2 million. As a result of higher prices and lower consumption levels, we project the consumers of lime ( both domestic and foreign) would lose $ 19.7 million annually, while domestic producer surplus would decline by $ 0.8 million. Foreign producers would gain as a result of the proposed regulation with profit increasing by $ 0.2 million. For more information regarding the economic impacts, consult the economic impact analysis in the docket for this rule.

V. Administrative Requirements A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), we would be required to determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a `` significant regulatory action'' within the meaning of the Executive Order. The EPA has submitted the action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the docket ( see ADDRESSEES section of this preamble).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. If we comply by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires us to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement ( FSIS). The FSIS would be required to include a description of the extent of our prior consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when we transmit a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, we would be required to include a certification from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that we have met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner. The proposed rule 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The proposed rule would not impose directly enforceable requirements on States, nor would it preempt them from adopting their own more stringent programs to control emissions from lime manufacturing facilities. Moreover, States are not required under the CAA to take delegation of federal NESHAP and bear their implementation costs, although States are encouraged and often choose to do so. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. Although it does not apply to the proposed rule, we have coordinated with State and local officials in the development of the proposed rule and we are providing them an opportunity for comment. A summary of the concerns raised during the notice and comment process and our response to those concerns will be provided in the final rulemaking notice. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. There are no lime manufacturing plants located on tribal land. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the proposed rule. The EPA specifically solicits additional VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78066 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules comment on the proposed rule from tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045 ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we would be required to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us. We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5   501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety risks. Additionally, the proposed rule is not economically significant as defined by Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, we generally would be required to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before we establish any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, we would be required to have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan would be required to provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of our regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. We have determined that the proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The total cost to the private sector is approximately $ 22.4 million per year. The proposed rule contains no mandates affecting State, local, or tribal governments. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. We have determined that the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as Amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as ( 1) A small business as a lime manufacturing company with less than 500 employees; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Despite the determination that the proposed rule would have no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA prepared a Small Business Flexibility Analysis that has all the components of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis ( IRFA). An IRFA examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that could reduce that impact. The Small Business Flexibility Analysis ( which is included in the economic impact analysis) is available for review in the docket, and is summarized below. Based on SBA's size definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and employment data, EPA identified 19 of the 45 companies owning potentially affected facilities as small businesses. Eight of these 45 companies manufacture beet sugar ( which would not be subject to this proposed rule), three of which are small firms. Further, an additional 3 of the 19 small companies would not be subject to the proposed rule because they do not manufacture lime in a kiln ( e. g., they are only depot or hydration facilities), and/ or we do not expect them to be major sources. It is therefore expected that 13 small businesses would be subject to this proposed rule. Although small businesses represent 40 percent of the companies within the source category, they are expected to incur 30 percent of the total industry annual compliance costs of $ 22.4 million. The economic impact analysis we prepared for this proposed rule includes an estimate of the changes in product price and production quantities for the firms that this proposed rule would affect. The analysis shows that of the facilities owned by potentially affected small firms, two may shut down rather than incur the cost of compliance with the proposed rule. Because of the nature of their production processes and existing controls, we expect these two firms will incur significantly higher compliance costs than the other small firms. Although any facility closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that in general, the burden on most small firms is low when compared to that of large firms. The average annual compliance costs for all small firms is $ 358,000, compared to $ 592,000 per year for large firms. If the two small firms expected to incur significantly higher control costs are excluded, the average annual compliance cost for the remaining firms VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78067 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules would be $ 205,000, which is much less than the average control costs for large firms. The EPA's efforts to minimize small business impacts have materially improved today's proposal. Economic analysis of provisions under earlier consideration for inclusion in this proposed rule indicated greater impacts on small businesses than those proposed today. For the small companies expected to incur compliance costs, the average total annual compliance cost would have been roughly $ 567,000 per small company ( compared with $ 358,000 in today's proposal). About 85 percent ( 11 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced an impact greater than 1 percent of sales ( compared with 69 percent of those small businesses in today's proposal). And 77 percent ( 10 firms) of those small businesses expected to incur compliance costs would have experienced impacts greater than 3 percent of sales ( compared with 31 percent of those small businesses in today's proposal). Before concluding that the Agency could properly certify today's rule under the terms of the RFA, EPA conducted outreach to small entities and convened a Panel as required by section 609( b) of the RFA to obtain the advice and recommendations from representatives of the small entities that potentially would be subject to the proposed rule requirements. The Panel convened on January 22, 2002, and was comprised of representatives from OMB, the SBA Office of Advocacy, the EPA Small Business Advocacy Chair, and the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards of EPA. The Panel solicited advice from eight small entity representatives ( SER), including the NLA and member companies and nonmember companies of the NLA. On January 30, 2002, the Panel distributed a package of descriptive and technical materials explaining the rule in progress to the SER. On February 19, 2002, the Panel met with the SER to hear their comments on preliminary options for regulatory flexibility and related information. The Panel also received written comments from the SER in response to both the outreach materials and the discussions at the meeting. Consistent with RFA/ SBREFA requirements, the Panel evaluated the assembled materials and small entity comments on issues related to the elements of the initial RFA. A copy of the Panel report is included in the docket for the proposed rule. The Panel considered numerous regulatory flexibility options in response to concerns raised by the SER. The major concerns included the affordability and technical feasibility of add on controls. These are the Panel recommendations and EPA's responses:   Recommend that the proposed rule should not include the HCl work practice standard, invoking section 112( d)( 4) of CAA. Response: The proposal does not include an emission standard for HCl.   Recommend that in the proposed rule, the MPO in the quarry should not be considered as emission units under the definition of affected source. Response: The MPO in the quarry are excluded from the definition of affected source.   Recommend that the proposed rule allow for the `` bubbling'' of PM emissions from all of the lime kilns and coolers at a lime plant, such that the sum of all kilns' and coolers' PM emissions at a lime plant would be subject to the PM emission limit, rather than each individual kiln and cooler. Response: The proposed rule defines the affected source as including all kilns and coolers ( among other listed emission units) at the lime manufacturing plant. This would allow the source to average emissions from the kilns and coolers for compliance determination.   Recommend that we request comment on establishing a subcategory because of the potential increase in SO2 and HCl emissions that may result in complying with the PM standard. Response: We are requesting comment on this issue.   Recommend that we undertake an analysis of the costs and emissions impacts of replacing scrubbers with dry APCD and present the results of that analysis in the preamble; and that we request comment on any operational, process, product, or other technical and/ or spatial constraints that would preclude installation of a dry APCD. Response: We are requesting comment on these issues and have presented said analysis.   Recommend that the proposed rule allow a source to use the ASTM HCl manual method for the measurement of HCl for area source determinations. Response: Today's proposal includes this provision.   Recommend that we clarify in the preamble to the proposed rule that we are not specifically requiring sources to test for all HAP to make a determination of whether the lime plant is a major or area source, and that we solicit public comment on related issues. Response: Today's preamble includes this language.   Recommend that we solicit comment on providing the option of using COMS in place of BLDS; recommend that we solicit comment on various approaches to using COMS; and recommend soliciting comment on what an appropriate opacity limit would be. Response: The preamble solicits comment on these issues.   Recommend that EPA take comment on other monitoring options or approaches, including the following: using longer averaging time periods ( or greater frequencies of occurrence) for demonstrating compliance with parameter limits; demonstrating compliance with operating parameter limits using a two tier approach; and the suitability of other PM control device operating parameters that can be monitored to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limits, in lieu of or in addition to the parameters currently required in the draft rule. Response: Today's preamble solicits comment on these issues.   Recommend that the incorporation by reference of Chapters 3 and 5 of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( ACGIH) Industrial Ventilation manual be removed from the proposed rule. Response: Today's proposed rule does not include this requirement.   Recommend that EPA reevaluate the assumptions used in modeling the economic impacts of the standards and conduct a sensitivity analysis using different price and supply elasticities reflective of the industry's claims that there is little ability to pass on control costs to their customers, and there is considerable opportunity for product substitution in a number of the lime industry's markets. Response: The EIA does include the aforementioned considerations and analyses. In summary, to better understand the implications of the proposed rule from the industries' perspective, we engaged with the lime manufacturing companies in an exchange of information, including small entities, during the overall rule development. Prior to convening the Panel, we had worked aggressively to minimize the impact of the proposed rule on small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA, and these pre Panel efforts have been discussed previously in this preamble. These are summarized below. 1. Lime manufacturing operations at beet sugar plants, of which three are small businesses, would not be affected sources.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78068 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules 2. Lime manufacturing plants that produce hydrated lime only would not be affected sources as well. 3. We are proposing PM emission limits which allow the affected source, including small entities, flexibility in choosing how they will meet the emission limit. And in general, the emission limitations selected are all based on the MACT floor, as opposed to more costly beyond the MACT floor options that we considered. An emission limit for mercury was rejected since it would have been based on a beyond the MACT floor control option. 4. We are proposing that compliance demonstrations for MPO be conducted monthly rather than on a daily basis. We believe this will reduce the amount of records needed to demonstrate compliance with the rule when implemented. 5. Furthermore, we are proposing the minimum performance testing frequency ( every 5 years), monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements specified in the general provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). 6. Finally, many lime manufacturing plants owned by small businesses would not be subject to the proposed standards because they are area sources. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. We have prepared an Information Collection Request ( ICR) document ( 2072.01), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, by email at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566   1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The proposed rule would require development and implementation of an operations, maintenance, and monitoring plan, which would include inspections of the control devices but would not require any notifications or reports beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection ( averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the rule) is estimated to be 7,766 labor hours per year, at a total annual cost of $ 621,673. This estimate includes notifications that facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; notifications of compliance status, including the results of performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3 year period of the ICR are estimated to be $ 1,000,000, with annualized costs of $ 377,933. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to: ( 1) Review instructions; ( 2) develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; ( 3) adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; ( 4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; ( 5) search data sources; ( 6) complete and review the collection of information; and ( 7) transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 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 our regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501, et seq., the EPA must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any information collection request in a proposed or final rule. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. By U. S. Postal Service, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460; or by courier, send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. EPA ( 2822T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 6143, Washington DC 20460 (( 202) 566   1700); and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after December 20, 2002, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by January 21, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in the proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ( NTTAA) of 1995 ( Public Law No. 104   113; 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The proposed rule involves technical standards. The EPA cites the following standards in the proposed rule: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 18, 22, 320, 321. Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 22,

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78069 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules and 321. The search and review results have been documented and are placed in the docket ( A   95   41) for the proposed rule. The three voluntary consensus standards described below were identified as acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of the proposed rule. The voluntary consensus standard ASME PTC 19   10   1981 Part 10, `` Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in the proposed rule for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ASME PTC 19   10   1981 Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to Method 3B. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6420   99, `` Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS),'' is appropriate in the cases described below for inclusion in the proposed rule in addition to EPA Method 18 codified at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for the measurement of organic HAP from lime kilns. The standard ASTM D6420   99 will be incorporated by reference in § 63.14. Similar to EPA's performance based Method 18, ASTM D6420   99 is also a performance based method for measurement of gaseous organic compounds. However, ASTM D6420   99 was written to support the specific use of highly portable and automated GC/ MS. While offering advantages over the traditional Method 18, the ASTM method does allow some less stringent criteria for accepting GC/ MS results than required by Method 18. Therefore, ASTM D6420   99 is a suitable alternative to Method 18 only where the target compound( s) are those listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99, and the target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume ( ppbv) and 100 ppmv. For target compound( s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99, but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the proposed rule specifies that the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in Section 10.5.3 of the ASTM method, must be followed, met, documented, and submitted with the data report even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water soluble. For target compound( s) not listed in Section 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99, and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420   99 does not apply. As a result, EPA will cite ASTM D6420   99 in the proposed rule. The EPA will also cite Method 18 as a GC option in addition to ASTM D6420   99. This will allow the continued use of GC configurations other than GC/ MS. The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6735   01, `` Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources   Impinger Method,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 for the purposes of the proposed rule provided that the additional requirements described in Section 63.7142 of the proposed rule are also addressed in the methodology. In addition to the voluntary consensus standards EPA uses in the proposed rule, the search for emissions measurement procedures identified 15 other voluntary consensus standards. The EPA determined that 12 of these 15 standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emission standards in the proposed rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test methods for the purposes of this rule. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for this purpose. The reasons for this determination can be found in the docket for the proposed rule. Three of the 15 voluntary consensus standards identified in this search were not available at the time the review was conducted for the purposes of the proposed rule because they are under development by a voluntary consensus body: ASME/ BSR MFC 13M, `` Flow Measurement by Velocity Traverse,'' for EPA Method 2 ( and possibly 1); ASME/ BSR MFC 12M, `` Flow in Closed Conduits Using Multiport Averaging Pitot Primary Flowmeters,'' for EPA Method 2; and ASTM D6348   98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' for EPA Method 320. The standard ASTM D6348   98, `` Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform ( FTIR) Spectroscopy'' has been reviewed by the EPA and comments were sent to ASTM. Currently, the ASTM Subcommittee D22   03 is now undertaking a revision of ASTM D6348   98. Upon successful ASTM balloting and demonstration of technical equivalency with the EPA FTIR methods, the revised ASTM standard could be incorporated by reference for EPA regulatory applicability. Section 63.7112 and Table 4 to proposed subpart AAAAA list the EPA testing methods included in the proposed rule. Under § § 63.7( f) and 63.8( f) of subpart A of the General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any of the EPA testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use The proposed rule is not a `` significant energy action'' as defined in Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Although compliance with the proposed rule could possibly lead to increased electricity consumption as sources may replace existing wet scrubbers with venturi wet scrubbers that require more electricity, the proposed rule would not require that venturi scrubbers be installed, and in fact, there are some alternatives that may decrease electrical demand. Further, the proposed rule would have no effect on the supply or distribution of energy. Although we considered certain fuels as potential bases for MACT, none of our proposed MACT determinations are based on fuels. Finally, we acknowledge that an interpretation limiting fuel use to the top 6 percent of `` clean HAP'' fuels ( if they existed) could potentially have adverse implications on energy supply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lime manufacturing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 26, 2002. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator.

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

PART 63   [ AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A   [ Amended]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by adding paragraphs ( b)( 27) and ( b)( 28) to read as follows:

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78070 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules § 63.14 Incorporation by reference.

* * * * * ( b) * * * ( 27) ASTM D6420   99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography   Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS), IBR approved [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] for § 63.7142. ( 28) ASTM D6735   01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources   Impinger Method, IBR approved [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] for § 63.7142. * * * * * 3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart AAAAA to read as follows:

Subpart AAAAA   National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Lime Manufacturing Plants What This Subpart Covers Sec. 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart? 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart? 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Emission Limitations 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet?

General Compliance Requirements 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart?

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations? 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements? 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations standard?

Continuous Compliance Requirements 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance? 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard?

Notifications, Reports, and Records 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when? 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when? 63.7132 What records must I keep? 63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records? Other Requirements and Information 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me? 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart? 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status? 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 Table 1 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Emission Limits Table 2 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Operating Limits Table 3 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Initial Compliance with Emission Limitations Table 4 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Requirements for Performance Tests Table 5 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Continuous Compliance with Operating Limits Table 6 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Periodic Monitoring for Compliance with Opacity and Visible Emissions Limits Table 7 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Requirements for Reports Table 8 to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63   Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart AAAAA What This Subpart Covers § 63.7080 What is the purpose of this subpart?

This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for lime manufacturing plants. This subpart also establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission limitations.

§ 63.7081 Am I subject to this subpart?

( a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a lime manufacturing plant ( LMP) that is a major source, or that is located at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air pollutant ( HAP) emissions, unless the LMP is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill or beet sugar manufacturing plant. ( 1) An LMP is an establishment engaged in the manufacture of lime product ( calcium oxide, calcium oxide with magnesium oxide, or dead burned dolomite) by calcination of limestone, dolomite, shells or other calcareous substances. ( 2) 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 per year 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. ( b) [ Reserved] § 63.7082 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover? ( a) This subpart applies to each existing, reconstructed, or new LMP that is located at a major source. ( b) The affected source is the collection of all of the emission units listed in paragraph ( c) of this section. ( c) Emission units are lime kilns, lime coolers and materials processing operations ( MPO) as defined in paragraph ( d) of this section. ( d) Materials processing operations are raw material grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators and belt conveyors, except as provided by paragraphs ( e) through ( g) of this section. ( e) Materials processing operations that process only lime product or fuel are not subject to this subpart. ( f) Truck dumping into any screening operation, feed hopper or crusher is not subject to this subpart. ( g) The first emission unit in the sequence of MPO that is subject to this subpart is the raw material storage bin. Any MPO which precedes the raw material storage bin is not subject to this subpart. Furthermore, the first conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart is the transfer point associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw material storage bin to the next emission unit. ( h) Lime hydrators are not subject to this subpart. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) A new affected source is the collection of all emission units listed in paragraph ( c) of this section for which construction begins after December 20, 2002, if you met the applicability criteria in § 63.7081 at the time you commenced construction. ( k) An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the criteria for reconstruction defined in § 63.2. ( l) [ Reserved] ( m) An affected source is existing if it is not new or reconstructed.

§ 63.7083 When do I have to comply with this subpart? ( a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must comply with this subpart according to paragraphs ( a)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) If you start up your affected source before the [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must comply with the emission limitations no later than [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( 2) If you start up your affected source after [ date of publication of the final VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78071 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules rule in the Federal Register], then you must comply with the emission limitations for new and reconstructed affected sources upon startup of your affected source. ( b) If you have an existing LMP, you must comply with the applicable emission limitations for the existing affected source, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no later than [ 3 years from the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. The compliance date is site specific for existing LMP and is the day following completion of all the performance tests required under § 63.7110( a). ( c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, the deadlines specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) and ( 2) of this section apply. ( 1) Any portion of the LMP that is a new affected source or a reconstructed affected source must be in compliance with this subpart upon startup. ( 2) The emission units of the existing LMP subject to emission limitations under this subpart must be in compliance with this subpart within 3 years after the source becomes a major source of HAP. ( d) You must meet the notification requirements in § 63.7130 according to the schedule in § 63.7130 and in subpart A of this part. Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart.

Emission Limitations § 63.7090 What emission limitations must I meet? ( a) You must meet each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) You must meet each operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you.

General Compliance Requirements § 63.7100 What are my general requirements for complying with this subpart? ( a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations ( including operating limits) in this subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( b) You must be in compliance with the opacity and visible emission limits in this subpart during the times specified in § 63.6( h)( 1). ( c) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 1)( i). ( d) You must prepare and implement for each LMP, a written operations, maintenance, and monitoring ( OM& M) plan. You must submit the plan to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval as part of the application for a 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71 permit. Any subsequent changes to the plan must be submitted to the applicable permitting authority for review and approval. Pending approval by the applicable permitting authority of an initial or amended plan, you must comply with the provisions of the submitted plan. Each plan must contain the following information: ( 1) Process and control device parameters to be monitored to determine compliance, along with established operating limits or ranges, as applicable, for each emission unit. ( 2) A monitoring schedule for each emission unit. ( 3) Procedures for the proper operation and maintenance of each emission unit and each air pollution control device used to meet the applicable emission limitations and operating limits in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart, respectively. ( 4) Procedures for the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of monitoring devices or systems used to determine compliance, including: ( i) Calibration and certification of accuracy of each monitoring device; ( ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction systems; ( iii) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( c)( 1), ( 3), and ( 4)( ii); and ( iv) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8( d). ( 5) Procedures for monitoring process and control device parameters. ( 6) Corrective actions to be taken when process or operating parameters or add on control device parameters deviate from the operating limits specified in Table 2 to this subpart, including: ( i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of a deviation or excursion, and the time the deviation or excursion began and ended; and ( ii) Procedures for recording the corrective action taken, the time corrective action was initiated, and the time and date the corrective action was completed. ( 7) A maintenance schedule for each emission unit and control device that is consistent with the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations for routine and long term maintenance. ( e) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan ( SSMP) according to the provisions in § 63.6( e)( 3).

Testing and Initial Compliance Requirements § 63.7110 By what date must I conduct performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations?

( a) If you have an existing affected source, you must complete all applicable performance tests within 3 years after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], according to the provisions in § § 63.7( a)( 2) and 63.7114. ( b) If you commenced construction or reconstruction of an LMP between December 20, 2002 and [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the proposed emission limitation or the promulgated emission limitation no later than 180 calendar days after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or within 180 calendar days after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix) and 63.7114. ( c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between December 20, 2002 and [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission limitation when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a demonstration of compliance with the promulgated emission limitation within 3 years after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] or after startup of the source, whichever is later, according to § § 63.7( a)( 2)( ix) and 63.7114. ( d) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3 hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units within existing affected sources at LMP begins at 12: 01 a. m. on the compliance date for existing affected sources, that is, the day following completion of the initial performance test( s), and ends at 3: 01 a. m. on the same day. ( e) For each emission limitation in Table 3 to this subpart that applies to you where the monitoring averaging period is 3 hours, the 3 hour period for demonstrating continuous compliance for emission units within new or reconstructed affected sources at LMP begins at 12: 01 a. m. on the day following completion of the initial compliance demonstration tests, as required in paragraphs ( b) and ( c) of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78072 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules section, and ends at 3: 01 a. m. on the same day.

§ 63.7111 When must I conduct subsequent performance tests? You must conduct a performance test within 5 years following the initial performance test and within 5 years following each subsequent performance test thereafter.

§ 63.7112 What performance tests, design evaluations, and other procedures must I use? ( a) You must conduct each performance test in Table 4 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Each performance test must be conducted according to the requirements in § 63.7( e)( 1) and under the specific conditions specified in Table 4 to this subpart. ( c) You may not conduct performance tests during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 1). ( d) Except for opacity and visible emission observations, you must conduct three separate test runs for each performance test required in this section, as specified in § 63.7( e)( 3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour. ( e) The emission rate of particulate matter ( PM) from the lime kiln ( and the lime cooler if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the lime cooler) must be computed for each run using Equation 1 of this section:

E CQ CQ PK Eq k k c c = + ( )/ ( . 1)

Where: E = Emission rate of PM, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ck = Concentration of PM in the kiln effluent, g/ dscm ( grain/ dscf). Qk = Volumetric flow rate of kiln effluent gas, dscm/ hr ( dscf/ hr). Cc = Concentration of PM in the cooler effluent, g/ dscm ( grain/ dscf). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. Qc = Volumetric flow rate of cooler effluent gas, dscm/ hr ( dscf/ hr). This value is zero if there is not a separate cooler exhaust to the atmosphere. P = Stone feed rate, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). K = Conversion factor, 1000 g/ kg ( 7000 grains/ lb). ( f) The combined particulate emission rate from all kilns and coolers within an existing affected source at an LMP must be calculated using Equation 2 of this section:

E EP P Eq T ii i i n i n = = =     / ( .

1 1 2) Where: ET = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at an existing LMP, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ei = Emission rate of PM from kiln i, or from kiln/ cooler combination i, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Pi = Stone feed rate to kiln i, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). n = Number of existing kilns at the existing affected source. ( g) The combined particulate emission rate from all new or reconstructed kilns and coolers must be calculated using Equation 3 of this section:

E EP P Eq TN j j j j m j m = = =     / ( . 3)

1 1 Where: ETN = Emission rate of PM from all kilns and coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Ej = Emission rate of PM from kiln j, or from kiln/ cooler combination j, kg/ Mg ( lb/ ton) of stone feed. Pj = Stone feed rate to kiln j, Mg/ hr ( ton/ hr). m = Number of kilns and kiln/ cooler combinations within the new or reconstructed affected source. ( h) Performance test results must be documented in complete test reports that contain the information required by paragraphs ( h)( 1) through ( 10) of this section, as well as all other relevant information. The plan to be followed during testing must be made available to the Administrator at least 60 days prior to testing, if requested. ( 1) A brief description of the process and the air pollution control system; ( 2) Sampling location description( s); ( 3) A description of sampling and analytical procedures and any modifications to standard procedures; ( 4) Test results, including opacity; ( 5) Quality assurance procedures and results; ( 6) Records of operating conditions during the test, preparation of standards, and calibration procedures; ( 7) Raw data sheets for field sampling and field and laboratory analyses; ( 8) Documentation of calculations; ( 9) All data recorded and used to establish operating limits; and ( 10) Any other information required by the test method. ( i) [ Reserved] ( j) You must establish any applicable 3 hour rolling average operating limit indicated in Table 2 to this subpart according to the applicable requirements in Table 3 to this subpart and paragraphs ( j)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Continuously record the parameter during the PM performance test and include the parameter record( s) in the performance test report. ( 2) Determine the average parameter value for each 15 minute period of each test run. ( 3) Calculate the test run average for the parameter by taking the average of all the 15 minute parameter values for the run. ( 4) Calculate the 3 hour operating limit by taking the average of the three test run averages. ( k) For each building enclosing any MPO that is subject to a visible emission ( VE) limit, you must conduct a VE check according to item 18 in Table 4 to this subpart, and in accordance with paragraphs ( k)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of the building over the test period to identify if there are VE, other than condensed water vapor. ( 2) Select a position at least 15 but not more than 1,320 feet from each side of the building with the sun or other light source generally at your back. ( 3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

§ 63.7113 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and maintenance requirements?

( a) You must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system ( CPMS) according to your OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d) and paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) of this section, and you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous opacity monitoring system ( COMS) as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS   1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. ( 1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15 minute period. ( 2) To calculate a valid hourly value, you must have at least three of four equally spaced data values for that hour from a CPMS that is not out of control according to your OM& M plan. ( 3) To calculate the average for each 3 hour averaging period, you must have at least two of three of the hourly averages for that period using only hourly average values that are based on valid data ( i. e., not from out of control periods). The 3 hour rolling average is updated each hour.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 EP20DE02.000</ MATH> EP20DE02.001</ MATH> EP20DE02.002</ MATH> 78073 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 4) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in accordance with your OM& M plan. ( 5) You must operate and maintain the CPMS in continuous operation according to the OM& M plan. ( b) For each flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( 1) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the flow rate. ( 2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances. ( 3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually. ( 4) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( c) For each pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( c)( 1) through ( 7) of this section. ( 1) Locate the pressure sensor( s) in or as close to a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure. ( 2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion. ( 3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inch of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range. ( 4) Check pressure tap pluggage daily. ( 5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly. ( 6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor. ( 7) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections for leakage. ( d) For each bag leak detection system, you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( d)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ( 2) The sensor on the bag leak detection system must provide output of relative PM emissions. ( 3) The bag leak detection system must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. ( 4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be able to hear it. ( 5) For a positive pressure fabric filter, each compartment or cell must have a bag leak detector. For a negativepressure or induced air fabric filter, the bag leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter. If multiple bag leak detectors are required ( for either type of fabric filter), detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm. ( 6) Bag leak detection systems must be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the OM& M plan. ( 7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways: ( i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device. ( ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. ( 8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless a responsible official, as defined in § 63.2, certifies in writing to the Administrator that the fabric filter has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition. ( e) For each PM detector, you must meet any applicable requirements in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 5) and ( e)( 1) through ( 8) of this section. ( 1) The PM detector must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter ( 0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less. ( 2) The sensor on the PM detector must provide output of relative PM emissions. ( 3) The PM detector must have an alarm that will sound automatically when it detects an increase in relative PM emissions greater than a preset level. ( 4) The alarm must be located in an area where appropriate plant personnel will be able to hear it. ( 5) For a positive pressure electrostatic precipitator ( ESP), each compartment must have a PM detector. For a negative pressure or induced air ESP, the PM detector must be installed downstream of the ESP. If multiple PM detectors are required ( for either type of ESP), detectors may share the system instrumentation and alarm. ( 6) Particulate matter detectors must be installed, operated, adjusted, and maintained so that they follow the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations. Standard operating procedures must be incorporated into the OM& M plan. ( 7) At a minimum, initial adjustment of the system must consist of establishing the baseline output in both of the following ways: ( i) Adjust the range and the averaging period of the device. ( ii) Establish the alarm set points and the alarm delay time. ( 8) After initial adjustment, the range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not be adjusted except as specified in the OM& M plan required by § 63.7100( d). In no event may the range be increased by more than 100 percent or decreased by more than 50 percent over a 365 day period unless a responsible official as defined in § 63.2 certifies in writing to the Administrator that the ESP has been inspected and found to be in good operating condition. ( f) For each emission unit equipped with an add on air pollution control device, you must inspect each capture/ collection and closed vent system at least once each calendar year to ensure that each system is operating in accordance with the operating requirements in item 6 of Table 2 to this subpart and record the results of each inspection. ( g) For each COMS used to monitor an add on air pollution control device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs ( g)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. ( 1) Install the COMS at the outlet of the control device. ( 2) Install, maintain, calibrate, and operate the COMS as required by 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, General Provisions and according to PS   1 of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.

§ 63.7114 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limitations standard? ( a) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation in Table 1 to this subpart that applies to you, according to Table 3 to this subpart. ( b) You must establish each sitespecific operating limit in Table 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the requirements in § 63.7112( j) and Table 4 to this subpart. ( c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration according to the requirements in § 63.7130( e).

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78074 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules Continuous Compliance Requirements § 63.7120 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous compliance?

( a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section. ( b) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities ( including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero adjustments), you must monitor continuously ( or collect data at all required intervals) at all times that the emission unit is operating. ( c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated control system.

§ 63.7121 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limitations standard?

( a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with each emission limitation in Tables 1 and 2 to this subpart that applies to you according to the methods specified in Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart. ( b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit in Tables 2 and 6 to this subpart that applies to you. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. These instances are deviations from the emission limitations in this subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in § 63.7131. ( c) During periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with the SSMP. ( d) Consistent with § § 63.6( e) and 63.7( e)( 1), deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in § 63.6( e). ( e) For each MPO subject to an opacity limitation as specified in Table 1 to this subpart, and any vents from buildings subject to an opacity limitation, you must conduct a VE check according to item 1 in Table 6 to this subpart, and as follows: ( 1) Conduct visual inspections that consist of a visual survey of each stack or process emission point over the test period to identify if there are visible emissions, other than condensed water vapor. ( 2) Select a position at least 15 but not more 1,320 feet from the affected emission point with the sun or other light source generally at your back. ( 3) The observer conducting the VE checks need not be certified to conduct Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, but must meet the training requirements as described in Method 22 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.

Notification, Reports, and Records § 63.7130 What notifications must I submit and when?

( a) You must submit all of the notifications in § § 63.6( h)( 4) and ( 5), 63.7( b) and ( c), 63.8( e), ( f)( 4) and ( 6), and 63.9 ( a) through ( j) that apply to you by the dates specified. ( b) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 2), if you start up your affected source before [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register]. ( c) As specified in § 63.9( b)( 3), if you startup your new or reconstructed affected source on or after [ date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], you must submit an Initial Notification not later than 120 calendar days after you startup your affected source. ( d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as required in § 63.7( b)( 1). ( e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design evaluation, opacity observation, VE observation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in Table 3 or 4 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance Status according to § 63.9( h)( 2)( ii). ( 1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 3 to this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. ( 2) For each compliance demonstration required in Table 5 to this subpart that includes a performance test conducted according to the requirements in Table 4 to this subpart, you must submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day following the completion of the performance test according to § 63.10( d)( 2).

§ 63.7131 What reports must I submit and when? ( a) You must submit each report in Table 7 to this subpart that applies to you. ( b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for submission of reports under § 63.10( a), you must submit each report by the date in Table 7 to this subpart and according to the requirements in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 5) of this section: ( 1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7083 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified for your source in § 63.7083. ( 2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date follows the end of the first half calendar year after the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in § 63.7083. ( 3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31. ( 4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual reporting period. ( 5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting regulations pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter, if the permitting authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports pursuant to § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter, you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to the dates in paragraphs ( b)( 1) through ( 4) of this section. ( c) The compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Company name and address.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78075 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules ( 2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness of the content of the report. ( 3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting period. ( 4) If you had a startup, shutdown or malfunction during the reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the compliance report must include the information in § 63.10( d)( 5)( i). ( 5) If there are no deviations from any emission limitations ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that apply to you, a statement that there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the reporting period. ( 6) If there were no periods during which the operating parameter monitoring systems was out of control as specified in § 63.8( c)( 7), a statement that there were no periods during the which the continuous monitoring system ( CMS) was out of control during the reporting period. ( d) For each deviation from an emission limitation ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) that occurs at an affected source where you are not using a CMS to comply with the emission limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) and ( d)( 1) and ( 2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 1) The total operating time of each emission unit during the reporting period. ( 2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations ( including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the corrective action taken. ( e) For each deviation from an emission limitation ( emission limit, operating limit, opacity limit, and VE limit) occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS to comply with the emission limitation in this subpart, you must include the information specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 4) and ( e)( 1) through ( 12) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped. ( 2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for zero ( lowlevel and high level checks. ( 3) The date, time and duration that each CMS was out of control, including the information in § 63.8( c)( 8). ( 4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction or during another period. ( 5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total source operating time during that reporting period. ( 6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other unknown causes. ( 7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of the total emission unit operating time during that reporting period. ( 8) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the affected source. ( 9) A brief description of the process units. ( 10) A brief description of the CMS. ( 11) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit. ( 12) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls since the last reporting period. ( f) Each facility that has obtained a title V operating permit pursuant to part 70 or part 71 of this chapter must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter. If you submit a compliance report specified in Table 7 to this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring report required by § 70.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) or § 71.6( a)( 3)( iii)( A) of this chapter, and the compliance report includes all required information concerning deviations from any emission limitation ( including any operating limit), submission of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report deviations from permit requirements to the permit authority.

§ 63.7132 What records must I keep?

( a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs ( a)( 1) through ( 3) of this section. ( 1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you submitted, according to the requirements in § 63.10( b)( 2)( xiv). ( 2) The records in § 63.6( e)( 3)( iii) through ( v) related to startup, shutdown, and malfunction. ( 3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and opacity and VE observations as required in § 63.10( b)( 2)( viii). ( b) You must keep the records in § 63.6( h)( 6) for VE observations. ( c) You must keep the records required by Tables 5 and 6 to this subpart to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you. ( d) You must keep the records which document the basis for the initial applicability determination as required under § 63.7081.

§ 63.7133 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

( a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available for expeditious review, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). ( b) As specified in § 63.10( b)( 1), you must keep each record for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. ( c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record, according to § 63.10( b)( 1). You may keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information § 63.7140 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

( a) Table 8 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions in § § 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you. When there is overlap between subpart A and subpart AAAAA, as indicated in the `` Explanations'' column in Table 8, subpart AAAAA takes precedence. ( b) [ Reserved]

§ 63.7141 Who implements and enforces this subpart?

( a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U. S. EPA, or by a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the U. S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency ( as well as the U. S. EPA) has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U. S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency. ( b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph ( c) of this VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78076 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules section are retained by the Administrator of U. S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, local, or tribal agency. ( c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs ( c)( 1) through ( 6) of this section. ( 1) Approval of alternatives to the non opacity emission limitations in § 63.7090( a). ( 2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations in § 63.7090( a). ( 3) Approval of alternatives to the operating limits in § 63.7090( b). ( 4) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 5) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8( f) and as defined in § 63.90. ( 6) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10( f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.7142 What are the requirements for claiming area source status? ( a) If you wish to claim that your LMP is an area source, you must measure the emissions of hydrogen chloride from all lime kilns at your plant using either: ( 1) EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, ( 2) EPA Method 321 of appendix A to this part, or ( 3) ASTM Method D6735   01, Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources   Impinger Method ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14), provided that the provisions in paragraphs ( a)( 3)( i) through ( vi) of this section are followed. ( i) A test must include three or more runs in which a pair of samples is obtained simultaneously for each run according to section 11.2.6 of ASTM Method D6735   01 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14). ( ii) You must calculate the test run standard deviation of each set of paired samples to quantify data precision, according to Equation 1 of this section:

RSD C C C Eq a a a a =   +             ( ) ( . 100 2 1 2 Absolute Value C1 1) a Where: RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation of sample pair a, percent. C1a and C2a = The HCl concentrations, mg/ dscm, from the paired samples. ( iii) You must calculate the test average relative standard deviation according to Equation 2 of this section:

RSD RSD p Eq TA a a p = =

1 ( . 2)

Where: RSDTA = The test average relative standard deviation, percent. RSDa = The test run relative standard deviation for sample pair a. p = The number of test runs,   3. ( iv) If RSDTA is greater than 20 percent, the data are invalid and the test must be repeated. ( v) The post test analyte spike procedure of section 11.2.7 of ASTM Method D6735   01 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14) is conducted, and the percent recovery is calculated according to section 12.6 of ASTM Method D6735   01 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14). ( vi) If the percent recovery is between 70 percent and 130 percent, inclusive, the test is valid. If the percent recovery is outside of this range, the data are considered invalid, and the test must be repeated. ( b) If you conduct tests to determine the rates of emission of specific organic HAP from lime kilns at LMP for use in applicability determinations under § 63.7081, you may use either: ( 1) Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or ( 2) Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, or ( 3) ASTM D6420   99, Standard Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ( GC/ MS), ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14), provided that the provisions of paragraphs ( b)( 3)( i) through ( iv) of this section are followed: ( i) The target compound( s) are those listed in section 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14); ( ii) The target concentration is between 150 parts per billion by volume and 100 ppmv; ( iii) For target compound( s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14), but potentially detected by mass spectrometry, the additional system continuing calibration check after each run, as detailed in section 10.5.3 of ASTM D6420   99 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14), is conducted, met, documented, and submitted with the data report, even if there is no moisture condenser used or the compound is not considered water soluble; and ( iv) For target compound( s) not listed in Table 1.1 of ASTM D6420   99 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14), and not amenable to detection by mass spectrometry, ASTM D6420   99 ( incorporated by reference   see § 63.14) may not be used.

§ 63.7143 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, and in this section as follows: Bag leak detector means the monitoring device and system for a fabric filter that identifies an increase in PM emissions resulting from a broken filter bag or other malfunction and sounds an alarm. Belt conveyor means a conveying device that transports material from one location to another by means of an endless belt that is carried on a series of idlers and routed around a pulley at each end. Bucket elevator means a material conveying device consisting of a head and foot assembly which supports and drives an endless single or double strand chain or belt to which buckets are attached. Building means any frame structure with a roof. Capture system means the equipment ( including enclosures, hoods, ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and transport PM generated by one or more process operations to a control device. Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to reduce PM emissions released to the atmosphere from one or more process operations at an LMP. Conveying system means a device for transporting material from one piece of equipment or location to another location within a plant. Conveying systems include but are not limited to feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators and pneumatic systems. Deviation means any instance in which an affected source, subject to this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source: ( 1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this subpart, including but not limited to any VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 EP20DE02.003</ MATH> EP20DE02.004</ MATH> 78077 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules emission limitation ( including any operating limit); ( 2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is included in the operating permit for any affected source required to obtain such a permit; or ( 3) Fails to meet any emission limitation ( including any operating limit) in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart. Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, operating limit, or VE limit. Emission unit means a lime kiln, lime cooler, raw material grinding mill, raw material storage bin, conveying system transfer point, bulk loading or unloading operation, bucket elevator or belt conveyor at an LMP. Fugitive emission means PM that is not collected by a capture system. Grinding mill means a machine used for the wet or dry fine crushing of any feed material. Grinding mills include, but are not limited to, the hammer, roller, rod, pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The grinding mill includes the air conveying system, air separator, or air classifier, where such systems are used. Hydrator means the device used to produce hydrated lime or calcium hydroxide via the chemical reaction of the lime product and water. Lime cooler means the device external to the lime kiln ( or part of the lime kiln itself) used to reduce the temperature of the lime produced by the kiln. Lime kiln means the device, including any associated preheater, used to produce a lime product from stone feed by calcination. Kiln types include, but are not limited to, rotary kiln, vertical kiln, rotary hearth kiln, double shaft vertical kiln, and fluidized bed kiln. Lime manufacturing plant ( LMP) means any plant which uses a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by calcination. Lime product means the product of the lime kiln calcination process including, calcitic lime, dolomitic lime, and dead burned dolomite. Limestone means the material comprised primarily of calcium carbonate ( referred to sometimes as calcitic or high calcium limestone), magnesium carbonate, and/ or the double carbonate of both calcium and magnesium ( referred to sometimes as dolomitic limestone or dolomite). Material means the raw limestone or stone feed used at an LMP. Materials processing operation ( MPO) means the equipment and transfer points between the equipment used to prepare, process, or transport limestone, or stone feed, and includes grinding mills, raw material storage bins, conveying system transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. Particulate matter ( PM) detector means the monitoring device and system for an ESP that identifies relative levels in PM emissions and sounds an alarm at a preset level. Positive pressure fabric filter or ESP means a fabric filter or ESP with the fan( s) on the upstream side of the control device. Screening operation means a device for separating material according to size by passing undersize material through one or more mesh surfaces ( screens) in series and retaining oversize material on the mesh surfaces ( screens). Stack emission means the PM that is released to the atmosphere from a capture system. Stone feed means the limestone feedstock and mill scale or other iron oxide additives that are fed to the lime kiln. Stone feed does not include the fuels used in the lime kiln to produce the heat needed to calcine the limestone into the lime product. Storage bin means a facility for storage ( including surge bins) of material prior to further processing or loading. Transfer point means a point in a conveying operation where the material is transferred to or from a belt conveyor ( except where the material is being transferred to a stockpile). Truck dumping means the unloading of material from movable vehicles designed to transport material from one location to another. Movable vehicles include but are not limited to trucks, front end loaders, skip hoists, and railcars. Vent means an opening through which there is mechanically induced air flow for the purpose of exhausting from a building air carrying PM emissions from one or more emission units.

Tables to Subpart AAAAA of Part 63 TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63.   EMISSION LIMITS [ You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( a)]

For . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . .

1. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at an existing LMP .... The sum of the PM emissions from all of the kilns and associated lime coolers must not exceed 0.06 kilograms per megagram ( kg/ Mg) ( 0.12 pounds per ton) of stone feed. 2. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP. The sum of the PM emissions from all of the kilns and associated lime coolers must not exceed 0.05 kg/ Mg ( 0.10 pounds per ton) of stone feed. 3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter ( g/ dscm). 4. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity.

5. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, except as provided by item 6 of this Table 1. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity.

6. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source enclosed in a building. All of the individually affected MPO must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations in items 3 through 5 of this Table 1, or the building must comply with the following: there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent; and vent emissions must not exceed the stack emissions limitations in items 3 and 4 of this Table 1.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78078 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63.   EMISSION LIMITS   Continued [ You must meet each emission limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( a)]

For . . . You must meet the following emission limitation . . .

7. Each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual, enclosed storage bin. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity.

8. Each set of multiple storage bins at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, with combined stack emissions. You must comply with the emission limits in items 3 and 4 of this Table 1.

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63.   OPERATING LIMITS [ You must meet each operating limit in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7090( b)]

For . . . You must . . .

1. Each lime kiln and each lime cooler ( if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler) equipped with a fabric filter. Maintain and operate the fabric filter such that the bag leak detector alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6 month period; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( d) and ( f) and Table 5 to this subpart. In lieu of a bag leak detector, maintain the fabric filter such that the 6 minute average opacity for any 6 minute block period does not exceed 15 percent; and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( f) and ( g) and Table 5 to this subpart. 2. Each lime kiln equipped with a wet scrubber ...................................... Maintain the 3 hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the most recent PM performance test; and maintain the 3 hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than the flow rate operating limit established during the most recent performance test. 3. Each lime kiln equipped with an electrostatic precipitator ................... Maintain the 3 hour rolling average current and voltage input to each electrical field of the ESP greater than or equal to the average current and voltage input to each field of the ESP established during the most recent performance test; or, in lieu of complying with these ESP parameter operating limits, install a PM detector and maintain and operate the ESP such that the PM detector alarm is not activated and alarm condition does not exist for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in a 6 month period, and comply with § 63.7113( e); or, maintain the ESP such that the 6 minute average opacity for any 6 minute block period does not exceed 15 percent, and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( g); and comply with the requirements in § 63.7113( f) and Table 5 to this subpart. 4. Each materials processing operation subject to a PM limit which uses a wet scrubber. Maintain the 3 hour rolling average exhaust gas stream pressure drop across the wet scrubber greater than or equal to the pressure drop operating limit established during the PM performance test; and maintain the 3 hour rolling average scrubbing liquid flow rate greater than or equal to the flow rate operating limit established during the performance test. 5. All affected sources .............................................................................. Prepare a written OM& M plan; the plan must include the items listed in § 63.7100( d) and the corrective actions to be taken when required in Table 5 to this subpart. 6. Each emission unit equipped with an add on air pollution control device ( 1) Vent captured emissions through a closed system, except that dilution air may be added to emission streams for the purpose of controlling temperature at the inlet to a fabric filter. ( 2) Operate each capture/ collection system according to the procedures and requirements in the OM& M plan.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78079 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63.   INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION LIMITS [ You must demonstrate initial compliance with each emission limitation that applies to you, according to the following table, as required in § 63.7114]

For . . . For the emission limitation . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance, if after following the requirements in § 63.7112 . . .

1. All lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at a new or reconstructed affected source and all lime kilns and their associated lime coolers at an existing affected source. If the lime cooler associated with the kiln has no separate exhaust to the atmosphere, PM emissions from all kilns and coolers at an existing LMP must not exceed 0.06 kg PM per Mg of stone feed ( 0.12 lb PM per ton of stone feed); PM emissions from all kilns and coolers at a new or reconstructed LMP must not exceed 0.05 kg PM per Mg of stone feed ( 0.10 lb PM per ton of stone feed); if a lime cooler associated with a kiln has a separate exhaust to the atmosphere the sum of all kiln and cooler PM emissions must not exceed 0.06 kg/ Mg ( 0.12 pounds per ton) of stone feed for existing LMP and 0.05 kg/ Mg ( 0.1 pounds per ton) of stone feed for kilns at new or reconstructed LMP. The kiln outlet PM emissions ( and if applicable, summed with the separate cooler PM emissions), based on the PM emissions measured using Method 5 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter and the stone feed rate measurement, over the period of the initial performance test, do not exceed the emission limit; if the lime kiln is controlled with an ESP ( and you are not opting to monitor PM emissions from the ESP with a PM detector or COMS) or wet scrubber, you have a record of the applicable operating parameters over the 3 hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation; if the lime kiln is controlled by a fabric filter or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions from the ESP with a PM detector or you are opting to monitor PM emissions from the fabric filter with a bag leak detector, you have installed and are operating the monitoring device according to the requirements in § 63.7113( d) or ( e), respectively; and if the lime kiln is controlled by a fabric filter or ESP and you are opting to monitor PM emissions using a COMS, you have installed and are operating the monitoring device according to the requirements in § 63.7113( g). 2. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. PM emissions must not exceed 0.05 g/ dscm ................. The outlet PM emissions, based on Method 5 or Method 17 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, over the period of the initial performance test do not exceed 0.05 g/ dscm; and if the emission unit is controlled with a wet scrubber, you have a record of the scrubber's pressure drop and liquid flow rate operating parameters over the 3 hour performance test during which emissions did not exceed the emissions limitation. 3. Stack emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, unless the stack emissions are discharged through a wet scrubber control device. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the thirty 6 minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit.

4. Fugitive emissions from all MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source. Emissions must not exceed 10 percent opacity ............. Each of the 6 minute opacity averages during the initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 10 percent opacity limit. 5. All MPO at a new, reconstructed or existing affected source, enclosed in a building. All of the individually affected MPO must comply with the applicable PM and opacity emission limitations for items 2 through 4 of this Table 3, or the building must comply with the following: there must be no visible emissions from the building, except from a vent, and vent emissions must not exceed the emission limitations in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. All the MPO enclosed in the building have demonstrated initial compliance according to the applicable requirements for items 2 through 4 of this Table 3; or if you are complying with the building emission limitations, there are no visible emissions from the building according to item 18 of Table 4 to this subpart and § 63.7112( k), and you demonstrate initial compliance with applicable building vent emissions limitations according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. 6. Each fabric filter that controls emissions from only an individual storage bin. Emissions must not exceed 7 percent opacity ............... Each of the ten 6 minute averages during the 1 hour initial compliance period, using Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter, does not exceed the 7 percent opacity limit. 7. Each set of multiple storage bins with combined stack emissions. You must comply with the emission limitations in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3. You demonstrate initial compliance according to the requirements in items 2 and 3 of this Table 3.

VerDate 0ct< 31> 2002 16: 15 Dec 19, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 20DEP2. SGM 20DEP2 78080 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 245 / Friday, December 20, 2002 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4 TO SUBPART AAAAA OF PART 63.   REQUIREMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE TESTS [ You must conduct each performance test in the following table that applies to you, as required in § 63.7112]

For . . . You must . . . Using . . . According to the following requirements . . .

1. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Select the location of the sampling port and the number of traverse ports. Method 1 or 1A of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter; and § 63.7( d)( 1)( i). Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control device s) and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.

2. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Determine velocity and volumetric flow rate. Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable.

3. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated lime cooler. Conduct gas molecular weight analysis. Method 3, 3A, or 3B in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable.

4. Each lime kiln and each associated lime cooler, if there is a separate exhaust to the atmosphere from the associated limit cooler. Measure moisture content of the stack gas. Method 4 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter. Not applicable.