wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, wet absorbent injection, dry absorbent
injection, and fly ash retorting with mercury controls. One commenter
states that in evaluating the MACT floor, EPA should establish a link
between mercury emissions and existing controls for sulfur and
particulate matter and examine potential co-benefit reductions.
According to the commenter, this would be similar to the approach used
by EPA in establishing the initial mercury caps in the Clean Air Mercury
Rule (CAMR). The commenter believes that specific control equipment will
result in a percent reduction of mercury whether the mercury is from
feedstock or fuel. Standards could be expressed as a desired percent
control achieved using a specific control technology combination for
sulfur and particulate matter as was done in the coal-fired electric
steam generating unit determinations. The commenter states that such an
approach is necessary to determine a new source standard for portland
cement kilns. The commenter included the tables that were developed for
the percent reduction determination for electric utilities.

One commenter states that more than 60 U.S. and 120 international
waste-to-energy plants fueled with municipal or industrial waste or
sewage sludge use sorbent injection ahead of fabric filters to remove
mercury from flue gases. The sorbents used include activated carbon,
lignite coke, sulfur containing chemicals, or combinations of these
compounds. Sorbent injection systems are demonstrated at the Holcim
Dundee plant which is limited by its permit to 115 lb/yr mercury, most
of which is assumed to be from coal. Mercury limits are also in place
under the hazardous waste combustor rule (70 FR 59402):120 ug/dscm for
new or existing cement kilns; 130 ug/dscm for hazardous waste
incinerators; 80 ug/dscm for large municipal waste combustors. The
commenter states that these limits set a precedent for establishing more
stringent mercury emission limits and that there are abatement
technologies available to exceed requirements. The commenter provided
emissions data for several U.S. cement kilns as well as emissions data
from cement kilns operating in Europe. The commenter states that sorbent
injection control technology is proven for mercury control and states
that this technology has been demonstrated on full-scale demonstrations
in the electric generating sector. According to the commenter, activated
carbon is also used to remove SO2, organic compounds, NH3, NH4, HCl, HF
and residual dust after an ESP or FF and that the spent or used sorbent
can be used as a fuel in the kiln and the particles are trapped in the
clinker. The commenter notes that a cement manufacturer in Switzerland,
fueled with renewable sludge waste, used activated carbon to achieve up
to 95 % reduction in SO2 which correlates to an emission rate of less
than 50ug/m3.

One commenter states that EPA should also consider pre-combustion
technology for coal that has been demonstrated in the utility sector.
One such technology, pre-combustion coal beneficiation, transforms
relatively low cost, low rank western coal (lignite or subbituminous)
into a cleaner more efficient energy source (k-FuelTM). This technology
applies heat and pressure to reduce moisture and can increase heat value
by 30-55% for low rank coals. The result is higher output per ton of
coal while lowering emissions including reduction in mercury content by
up to 70% or more and reduced emissions of SO2 and NOx.

Response: We have reevaluated the available emission control technology
for reducing mercury emissions. The commenters mentioned numerous
control technologies including wet scrubbers, dry scrubbers, wet sorbent
injection, dry sorbent injection, and fly ash retorting.  Dry sorbent
injection and fly ash retorting have not been applied to cement kilns.
Therefore, they cannot be considered the basis of a MACT floor.  Dry
scrubbers and wet sorbent injection systems have been applied at one
location each, but these systems do not operate continuously and would
therefore not be considered as a floor technology.  We evaluated the
carbon injection system mentioned by the commenter.  However, the
configuration of this system is different from the configuration
required to achieve a mercury reduction.  The fact that the facility
meets a specific mercury limit is not attributable to the sorbent
injection system, which is configured for control of total hydrocarbons.
(See section IV. C. on why this facility does not represent new source
MACT for THC emissions.)

We also are aware that wet scrubber technology has been applied to at
least five cement kilns, and therefore we did evaluate wet scrubbers as
a floor technology for both new and existing sources and as a
beyond-the-floor technology for existing sources.  Our analysis and
conclusions are set out in sections IV.A.1.d and IV.A.2 above.

We did not evaluate control technologies other than wet scrubbers and
ACI as a potential beyond-the-floor technology.  We have no data to
indicate that these controls are any more efficient or cost effective
than the controls we did evaluate.  In addition the performance of these
controls is less certain than either wet scrubbers or ACI.

The commenter also notes that mercury limits have been applied to other
source categories and to cement kilns that burn hazardous waste.  The
application of an emission limit to another source category or class of
cement kiln does not, in and of itself, indicate that a mercury
emissions limit is required or appropriate here.  With respect to the
mercury standards for cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, as noted
earlier, these standards are based exclusively on control of mercury
levels in the hazardous waste fuel inputs, and hence are not applicable
to the portland cement kiln category.  See 70 FR 59648. In addition, we
note that the limits mentioned are well above the emission test data for
all but two cement kilns that do not burn hazardous waste. Cement kilns
that burn hazardous waste typically have stack gas concentrations of 43
to 196 µg/dscm resulting from the hazardous waste alone (69 FR 21251,
April 20, 2004).  Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to assume that
cement kilns that do not fire hazardous waste are much lower emitters of
mercury than the hazardous waste-firing cement kilns.

	The commenter also mentioned pre-combustion technology for mercury
control, including k-Fuel.  Coal cleaning is another option for removing
mercury from the fuel prior to combustion. In some states, certain kinds
of coal are commonly cleaned to increase its quality and heating value.

Approximately 77 percent of the eastern and midwestern bituminous coal
shipments are cleaned in order

to meet customer specifications for heating value, ash content and
sulfur content.  See Mercury Study Report to Congress:  Volume VIII:  An
Evaluation of Mercury Control Technologies and Costs, December 1997.
Given the fact that most coal is already cleaned, we believe that any
benefits of mercury reduction from coal cleaning are already being
realized.  There is only one k-Fuel production plant of which we are
aware, so this fuel is not available in sufficient quantities to be
considered as a potential alternative fuel.  We are not aware of any
widely available coals that have been subjected to more advanced coal
cleaning techniques.  We also note that advanced coal cleaning
techniques have an estimated cost of approximately $140 million per ton
of mercury reduction.  These costs per ton of removal are higher than
costs of other potential beyond-the-floor technologies such as ACI and
wet scrubbers.

Comment:  Several comments were received regarding the need for EPA to
include in its analysis of the MACT floor the use of work practices
alone or in combination with control technologies to reduce mercury
emissions. Two commenters state that the work practice of wasting a
portion of the control device catch, that is disposing of a portion of
the catch rather than recycling it back to the kiln, can reduce total
mercury emissions. One commenter cites a European report showing that
lowering the gas temperature upstream of the baghouse accompanied by
disposing of part of the catch is an effective measure in reducing
mercury emissions. According to the commenter, material removal is
already practiced at many kilns in the U.S. for other reasons than
mercury removal.  This occurs for example when cement kiln dust (CKD) is
wasted or when a bypass is used at kilns with preheaters to relieve
buildups of volatile components, e.g., chlorides or sulfates. The
commenter states that such kilns emit less mercury through the stack
than kilns that do not waste CKD. The commenter cites a publication of
the Portland Cement Association documenting this. The two commenters
state that one opportunity to avoid the recycling of CKD is by mixing it
with clinker to make masonry and other types of cement. One commenter
states that CKD has numerous beneficial uses and can be sold as a
byproduct by cement plants. The commenter addresses some of the barriers
to the practice of mixing materials with clinker to make materials for
sale. In response to comments that the industry apply various non-ACI
controls or work practices to reduce mercury emissions, one commenter
states that none of these practices have been demonstrated to be
effective in controlling mercury emissions from cement kilns.

One commenter states that EPA could consider prohibiting or limiting CKD
recycling in cement kilns while requiring activated carbon injection
(ACI) in conjunction with existing particulate matter control devices.
According to the commenter, this approach would avoid the expense of an
additional control device and its associated waste stream. The commenter
recognizes that there is a possibility that the mercury and carbon level
in the CKD may cause it to be considered a hazardous waste

Two commenters support the use of alternative feed and fuel materials as
techniques for reducing mercury emissions. One commenter states that
EPA’s evaluation of low-mercury fuels should have included petroleum
coke. According to the commenter, testing at one kiln has shown that
petroleum coke contained significantly less mercury than the coal
previously used to fuel the kiln.  The commenter also suggested
evaluating the increasing use of tire-derived fuel and its impact on
mercury emissions. One commenter states that data are available that
indicate that mercury content of fuel and feed used by kilns is not so
variable that an upper limit for mercury in coal and feed could not be
set by EPA. One commenter states that EPA should collect sufficient data
on the variability of mercury in feed and fuel materials to actually
determine what the variability is.

One commenter responded to comments recommending that kilns switch from
coal to petroleum coke, fuel oil, and tire-derived fuel because these
have lower mercury concentrations. The commenter states that limited
supply, long distances, and permitting issues make it impossible to
replace a significant percentage of the coal burned with alternative
fuels. The commenter states, however, that the industry could utilize a
much larger amount of these fuels if permitting barriers were lowered.

Response:  We agree that reducing the recycling of CKD has, in some
cases, been shown to reduce mercury emissions and that this practice
creates a floor for both existing and new sources.  See section IV.A.1.c
above.  The amount of CKD recycled versus the CKD wasted at any facility
is based on the concentration of alkali metals in the raw materials.
Also, the effect of this practice on mercury emissions will be highly
variable because the amount of mercury present in the cement kiln dust
varies from facility to facility.  Thus, we have adopted a work practice
standard which will reflect these site-specific practices.  We also have
evaluated a beyond-the-floor control option based on further reducing
the recycling of CKD back to the cement kiln and determined it was not
achievable (within the meaning of section 112 (d)(2)) after considering
costs, energy impacts, and nonair quality impacts.  This would also be
the case if one combined ACI and reduced or eliminated the recycling of
CKD.

	We commenter also suggested the use of lower mercury fuels,
specifically petroleum coke, and setting a limit for mercury emission
based on the upper bounds of the limits of mercury in the feed and fuel.
 We rejected this later option because it would set a limit that has no
environmental benefit because it achieves no emissions reduction. See
section I.A. 1. b above. Another commenter mentioned the problems with
setting a limit based on changes to fuels, namely that limited supply
would preclude any MACT floor based on fuel switching, and would
likewise preclude any beyond-the-floor option. We agree with those
comments. See 70 FR 72334.

Comment: Several comments support EPA’s decision not to set
“beyond-the-floor” mercury standards for the following reasons: 1)
any possible activated carbon injection “back-end” control
technology would be prohibitively expensive, 2) the cost per mass of
mercury emissions reduced would be astronomical, and 3) the application
of such possible activated carbon injection would generate additional
solid waste and increase energy use.

Response: We agree with these comments for the reasons previously
discussed.

Comment:  A commenter states that in the beyond-the-floor evaluation,
EPA failed to consider other control measures that reduce mercury
emissions. The commenter cited coal cleaning, mercury-specific  coal
treatments, optimization of existing control (the commenter supplied a
list of optimizing technologies), as well as currently available control
technologies such as enhanced wet scrubbing, Powerspan-ECO®, Advanced
Hybrid Filter, Airborne Process, LoTox process and MerCAP. According to
the commenter, mercury reductions for these technologies range from 20
percent to over 90 percent. According to the commenter, EPA’s failure
to evaluate any of these measures is arbitrary and capricious and
contravenes CAA 112(d)(2) which requires the agency to set standards
reflecting the maximum degree of reduction achievable through the full
range of potential reduction measures.

	In a later comment, the same commenter states that EPA failed to
satisfy the CAA by not considering end-of-stack controls. As an example
of a controlled source, the commenter states that Holcim’s Zurich
plant successfully uses the Polvitec system, a carbon filter system that
controls mercury as well as organic pollutants.

	One commenter objects to EPA’s refusal to set beyond-the-floor
mercury standards as unlawful and arbitrary. The commenter states that
EPA failed to consider eliminating the use of fly ash as a
beyond-the-floor standard even though it is possible for kilns not to
use fly ash - a majority of kilns do not use any fly ash – and not
using fly ash would reduce mercury emissions. (This later statement is
not supported by existing data, as explained in section I.A.1. b above.)
 For example, the commenter states that more than half the mercury
emissions from an Alpena, MI kiln are from fly ash. According to the
commenter, kilns could also reduce mercury emissions by using cleaner
fuel (e.g., natural gas), using coal with lower mercury content,
refraining from the use of other mercury containing by-products from
power plants, steel mills, and foundries, and refraining from the use of
flue gas dryer sludge.	One commenter recommends that EPA conduct a new
beyond-the-floor evaluation based on up-to-date and complete data.

Response:  We have conducted additional beyond-the-floor analyses for
all demonstrated control techniques for cement kilns.  This included
banning use of utility boiler fly ash as feed to cement kilns, reducing
the recycling of CKD, use of wet scrubbers, and use of ACI.  These are
discussed in section I.A.2 above.  The commenters mentioned other
additional control techniques including both add-on controls and coal
cleaning.  These are not demonstrated control technologies for this
source category.  In the case of any coal cleaning technology, we did
not specifically evaluate these technologies.  We know of no case where
these technologies have been used in the cement industry, or any other
industry, as the basis for control of mercury emissions, therefore they
cannot be considered a floor technology.  We also do not consider these
technologies to be demonstrated to the point where we would consider
them as the basis of a beyond-the-floor standard.  As noted above, most
coals are already cleaned.  Coals that have been cleaned using advanced
cleaning techniques are not generally available.  In addition, data from
an evaluation of advanced coal cleaning indicated that the costs were
approximately $140 million per ton of mercury reduction.  See Mercury
Study Report to Congress:  Volume VIII:  An Evaluation of Mercury
Control Technologies and Costs, December 1997.

Comment:  Citing the information used to estimate costs and mercury
reductions associated with ACI as outdated, unsupported and unexplained,
one commenter states that EPA’s estimates are inadequate and,
furthermore, ignores the more recent ACI data used in EPA’s power
plant rulemaking.

Response:  We have updated our ACI costs based on more recent
information.

Comment:  One commenter states that recent tests for mercury emission
from portland cement plants in New York and Michigan show that EPA does
not have an accurate picture of mercury emissions from this industry.
The commenter states that the lack of accurate information affected
EPA’s analysis of ACI as a beyond the floor control. The commenter
recommends that EPA conduct additional stack testing to collect accurate
emissions data.

One commenter also states that EPA does not provide information on the
amount of mercury that would be reduced by ACI. The commenter states
that self-reported mercury emission data provided by industry in EPA’s
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), appear to grossly underestimate actual
kiln mercury emissions and provides examples of such under-reporting.
Based on the limited emissions test data, the commenter states that
actual mercury emissions data could be ten times greater than the TRI
estimates. The commenter states that EPA’s estimate of the cost of ACI
and the amount of mercury that would be reduced are arbitrary and
capricious and, therefore, so is EPA’s reliance on cost per ton
estimates as a basis for rejecting ACI as a beyond-the-floor technology.

Two commenters state that, given mercury’s toxicity and the
significant mercury emissions from Portland cement plants, they strongly
disagree with EPA’s conclusion that standards to limit mercury
emissions are “not justified.”

Response:  The commenters did not provide data to support their claims
that mercury emissions from this source category are significantly
underestimated.  We are aware that recent tests a several facilities
have indicated that they had significantly underestimated their mercury
emissions.  In some cases the mercury emissions were significantly
higher.  We are also aware of recent tests where the measured mercury
emissions were low, and in a least one case was actually below previous
estimates.  We do not agree that these few cases indicate that our
current estimates of mercury emissions are significantly in error.

Comments:  Several commenters state that EPA has ignored or undervalued
non-air impacts. Commenters state that EPA should consider non-air
environmental, economic, and societal impacts resulting from
contamination of water bodies and their lost recreational and commercial
fishing uses negatively affecting tourism and jobs; and neurological
effects on children caused by mercury exposures among females of
child-bearing age. According to commenters, local advisories against
eating fish due to mercury tissue levels undercuts efforts to encourage
fish consumption as a way to reduce risk of heart disease. One commenter
states that in failing to set maximum degree of reduction standards that
are achievable, EPA did not consider the costs of not setting mercury
standards, including the public health costs of increased exposure to
mercury in children as well as the societal costs of contaminated water
bodies, fish, and other wildlife.

Response:  The purpose of 112(d) standards is to apply maximum
achievable control technology.    The consideration of impacts such as
those discussed above is performed during the section 112(f) residual
risk phase.  See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F. 3d 976, 989-90 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (rejecting the commenter’s argument).  We have begun this
analysis for this source category.  The results of this analysis will be
included in a separate rulemaking.

Comment:  Several commenters raised concerns related to the local
impacts of industrial mercury emissions. According to one commenter, the
high temperature of cement kilns results in mercury emissions that fall
out and are deposited much closer to the source than was previously
thought. One commenter cites research that confirms that mercury
disproportionately affects nearby residents and that shows that nearly
70 percent of the mercury in an area’s rainwater comes from nearby
coal-burning industrial plants. One commenter states that EPA did not
consider impacts of mercury hot spots citing Florida and EPA research
showing a reduction in local and regional fish Hg levels when MACT
standards for medical and municipal incineration were implemented. The
commenter provided documentation of impacts on local environments of
lowering local or regional mercury emissions. One commenter states that
they are concerned over the documented levels of mercury in fish in
their county and the fact that three recently permitted portland cement
plants in their county are permitted to emit over 400 lb/yr of mercury
in addition to a coal fired electrical generating plant that emits over
70 lbs of mercury annually.

Response:  These factors will be considered in the section 112
(f)residual risk analysis discussed above. It is impermissible to these
risk-based factors in setting the technology-based standards at issue
here.

Comment:  EPA solicited comments on a potential ban of the use of
mercury-containing fly ash from utility boilers as an additive to cement
kiln feed. Numerous commenters state that a ban is premature for several
reasons with their objections falling into one of several groupings:
anti-RCRA, CAMR in litigation, mercury removal technology not yet
developed, substitutes may be more harmful, and cost of a ban has not
been considered. Due to these concerns about the completeness of data
they believe are relevant to banning the use of fly ash as a cement
plant raw material, the commenters suggest the fly ash ban be postponed
and studied further for now.

Two commenters add that banning fly ash use, thereby requiring cement
manufacturers to use substitutes for raw materials, cannot be used as
the basis of a national rule due to the variability of mercury content
of fly ash.  These commenters also state that banning the use of fly ash
could result in power companies having trouble finding ways to manage
fly ash that would not increase impacts on land use and other ecosystem
values.  These commenters state that further study of such trade-offs is
necessary.

Another commenter notes that approximately 2.5 million tons of fly ash
is used annually in cement kilns, thus reducing the need for an
equivalent amount of natural materials that would come from virgin
sources.

Another commenter notes that some configurations of coal-fired electric
generating unit control equipment can reduce the level of ash-bound
mercury, and that research is being conducted on methods that capture
and stabilize mercury, producing a secondary waste product separate from
the ash stream.

One commenter adds that the costs of replacing fly ash with other
materials could be in excess of $10 million per ton of mercury removed.
This commenter also states that the use of some alternate materials
could result in emissions of HAP, including mercury, and increased
emissions of criteria pollutants either directly or as the result of
increased fuel usage per ton of clinker produced.

One commenter agrees with EPA that fly ash from electric utility boilers
may progressively contain more mercury as the electric utility industry
reduces its mercury emissions. According to the commenter, some boiler
fly ash is of a quality that allows it to be added directly as a raw
material for concrete where most of the mercury is permanently bound;
lower quality fly ash is unusable in concrete and instead is added as a
raw material additive to the cement kiln. This commenter, however,
recommends that EPA consider work practices, monitoring, and mercury
controls rather than a ban on fly ash.

Two commenters state that data from TRI showing that 64% of kilns not
using fly ash account for 60% of mercury emissions, while the 36% that
do use fly ash account for about 40% of mercury emissions, do not
justify a conclusion that fly ash feedstock from utility boilers that
control mercury is a culprit in mercury emissions from cement kilns.

Two commenters, citing EPA’s positing that wet kilns may emit more
mercury than dry kilns, suggest that the driver for mercury emissions
from kilns may be the type of kiln rather than the feedstock.

Two commenters note that EPA acknowledges that the proposed ban fails to
consider the solid waste and economic impacts of diverting 2-3 million
tons/yr from beneficial use to disposal in landfills, including the
economic impacts of lost revenue from the sale of fly ash, landfill
disposal fees, and the potential rate increases for electricity
consumers; and the environmental impacts of relying on virgin feedstock
- which contains mercury as well as organic compounds – including
increased energy use, additional air emissions, and impacts on natural
resources.

One commenter states that there are many advantages (a list of the
environmental and energy benefits is included as part of the comment)
associated with the use of fly ash as an alternative for some naturally
occurring raw materials. The commenter states that they also understand
the impacts that the use of fly ash may have on mercury emissions and
are looking at approaches that may be used to minimize mercury emissions
from use of fly ash. They state that they will provide additional
information on a preferred approach should one be identified.

One commenter opposes a blanket ban on use of fly ash without regard to
its source or the use of analysis to determine mercury content. The
commenter agrees that setting mercury emission limits is inappropriate
given the variability in concentration in raw materials and that it
would be contrary to case law under CAA section 112. The commenter lists
the manufacturing and environmental benefits of using fly ash as a
substitute for other raw materials: reduced fuel consumption in kiln;
reduced power consumption for grinding; reduce emissions of organics
(THC) and combustion emissions (NOx, SO2, and CO); reduce need to
dispose of fly ash; and reduced SO2 emissions from reduced use of raw
materials containing pyrites. The commenter states that in some regions,
fly ash is the only source of aluminum for some cement plants. Also,
they state that like other raw materials, the mercury content of fly ash
can vary widely. The commenter recommends an approach that allows the
use of fly ash if companies can demonstrate that mercury emissions will
not be significantly impacted. Such an approach is being developed by
the commenter and will be submitted to EPA as a supplement to their
comments.

Response:  We have considered the comments above and have come to the
conclusion that a ban on the use of utility boiler fly ash is not
warranted. See section I.A.1.b above.

Comment:  Several commenters are opposed to allowing the use of fly ash
if it means increased mercury emissions. One commenter cited a study
showing that fly ash mercury content can vary from 0.005 to 120 ug/g of
ash as evidence that EPA needs to limit the use of fly ash in cement and
should also evaluate other additives, including cement kiln dust, for
their mercury emissions potential. One commenter states that if the
mercury in fly ash will cause the fly ash to be classified as a
hazardous waste, its use should be banned until the fate of mercury in
the cement manufacturing process is better understood.

One commenter states that EPA should take into consideration future
increases in the mercury content of coal combustion products (CCP)
resulting from the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury
Rule. They state that the higher mercury content of CCP used in
producing portland cement as well as the recycling of cement kiln dust
could cause mercury emissions to increase.

Several commenters understand that fly ash is a necessary component in
the manufacturing process, but believe measures should be implemented to
avoid increased mercury emissions. One commenter recommends the use of
fly ash as long as control requirements are included in the rule, e.g.,
work practice standards and other strategies to prevent an increase in
mercury emissions from the fly ash. One commenter states that EPA should
require either 1) carbon injection with fabric filtration without
insufflation, or 2) treatment of the ash to remove and capture the
mercury. According to the commenter, if these do not adequately reduce
mercury emissions, the fly ash should not be used. Another commenter
states that EPA should include provisions for pollution prevention
plans, in which monitoring and testing of mercury sources are conducted
and appropriate work practices or other measures are evaluated and
implemented to control mercury emissions. The commenter states that the
facility can then determine the least cost approach for achieving
mercury reductions.

One commenter states that EPA needs to further investigate the practice
of adding fly ash to understand the concentration of mercury being added
and subsequent emissions of mercury. The commenter states that if
alternatives are available, EPA should consider banning the use of fly
ash.

Response:  We received comments both for and against the use of utility
boiler fly ash.  As previously noted in this notice, we performed our
own evaluation of the practice based on the available data.  The result
of our analysis was that even though we are aware of one facility where
the use of fly ash contributes to approximately half of the facility’s
mercury emissions, we cannot state that this occurs at other cement
kilns using fly ash.  We also note numerous positive environmental
effects of using fly ash in lieu of shale and clay, including increases
in overall kiln energy efficiency, and a potential reduction in THC
emissions.  Given the lack of data that the use of fly ash adversely
affects mercury emissions (causes an increase in emissions over raw
materials that would be used in place of the fly ash) other then at one
facility, and the other positive environmental benefits, we do not
believe any action is warranted on fly ash use as currently practiced in
the industry.

	The commenters also expressed concern that as utility boilers apply ACI
or other sorbents to reduce their mercury emissions, utility boiler fly
ash will have significantly increased mercury concentrations, likely
well in excess of levels in clay and shale that would be used in its
place.  We agree with this concern.  As previously noted the available
data indicate that ACI (or other sorbent) can significantly increase fly
ash mercury content.  For this reason, we have added a provision in the
final rule to ban the use as a cement kiln feed utility boiler fly ash
whose mercury content has been artificially increased through the use of
sorbent injection, unless it can be shown that the use of this fly ash
will not increase mercury emissions over a cement kiln’s raw material
baseline.

Comment:  Regarding EPA’s decision to not set HCl standards for
existing kilns, a commenter states that EPA’s action is unlawful,
contemptuous of court, and arbitrary for all of the reasons cited above
by the commenter in their comment on EPA’s action on the mercury rule.
In addition, the commenter also finds EPA’s proposal regarding HCl
unlawful and arbitrary for the following reasons.

The commenter states that EPA asserts that it “reexamined” the MACT
floor for existing sources whereas the court directed EPA to “set”
HCl standards. Thus, according to the commenter, EPA’s stated reason
for not setting HCl standards for existing kilns (the number of kilns
equipped with scrubbers is insufficient to constitute 12 percent of the
kilns) is irrelevant. According to the commenter, the approach EPA is
required to take is to average the emission levels with those of the
other best performing sources to set the floor. The commenter states
that such a level would not reflect the performance of scrubbers, rather
it would reflect the level achieved by the best performing sources as
required by the CAA. The commenter states also that EPA’s reasoning
that the unavailability of low-chlorine feed or fuel justifies a
decision not to set HCl standards for existing kilns is irrelevant,
because EPA has an unambiguous legal obligation to set floors reflecting
the HCl emission levels achieved by the relevant best performing kilns.

One commenter states that in setting work practice standards for HCl,
EPA did not satisfy the CAA criteria that apply when it is “not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard.” The commenter
states that a work practice standard is unlawful because EPA did not and
could not claim that 1) HCl cannot be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant or that such
conveyance would be inconsistent with any existing law or 2) the
application of measurement methodology is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.

Response:  First, the comment is moot because EPA is not setting a
standard for HCl since emissions of this HAP from cement kilns will not
result in adverse effects on human health or the environment (with an
ample margin of safety), even under reasonable worst case assumptions as
to potential exposure.  See section IV.B above, and CAA section
112(d)(4).  Second, EPA did propose standards for HCl for both existing
and new sources, so the commenter’s claim that EPA disregarded the
court’s mandate at proposal is mistaken.

Moreover, as previously discussed, we do not agree with the commenter
that the court’s mandate required us to set standards regardless of
the facts.   The court noted that we had inappropriately limited our
analysis to add-on control technologies, and had not examined all
available means of setting a standard.  As noted at proposal, we have
now reviewed all available control techniques to set a floor limit for
HCl emissions.  We considered the use of fuel and feed selection as the
basis for a standard, and found this approach to present the same
problems experienced with mercury. We continue to believe that these
facts preclude using these approaches as the basis of a MACT floor.
Setting some type of quantified emissions limit based on test data, as
the commenter states is mandated, would mean that many facilities,
including those which were the lowest emitting in individual tests,
would have to apply a beyond-the-floor add-on control technology to meet
the floor level of control without consideration of the costs, energy,
and nonair environmental impacts.

	As discussed in the proposed amendments we are also unable to set any
percent reduction requirements (70 FR 72336).

Comment:  Two commenters took issue with EPA’s definition of “new”
sources as it applies to the proposed HCl limits for new kilns.
Regarding EPA’s new source standards for HCl (15 ppmv or 90 percent
HCl reduction), one commenter states that EPA has created a compliance
loophole for kilns that commenced construction before December 2, 2005
and is unlawful. According to the commenter, the CAA defines new source
where construction or reconstruction commenced after the Administrator
“first” proposes regulations. The commenter states that EPA first
proposed standards on March 24, 1998 and that any kiln at which
construction or reconstruction was commenced after March 24, 1998 is a
new source and must meet new source standards. The commenter states that
EPA ignores that its violation of a clear statutory duty, (i.e., its
failure to promulgate HCl standards in the 1998 rulemaking), is the
reason that sources built after March 24, 1998 have not already
installed pollution controls necessary to meet new source HCl standards.

Response:  We disagree with these comments.  First, the comment is moot
with respect to an HCl new source standard because, based on the
authority of section 112 (d)(4),   EPA has determined that no such
standard is required. However, the same issue of the applicability date
for new sources is presented for mercury and THC, so we are responding
to the comment.

	The whole premise of new source standards being potentially more strict
than for existing sources, and requiring new sources to comply
immediately with those requirements (see section 112 (d)(3) (new source
floor criteria are more stringent than those for existing sources) and
112 (i)(1)), is that these sources are being newly constructed and hence
can immediately install the best pollution controls without incurring
the time or the expense of retrofitting.  Put another way, new sources
know from the beginning of the construction effort what controls will be
required, and do not have to incur the higher costs and the
time-consuming disruptions normally associated with control retrofits.
If we were to require “new sources” that commenced construction
prior to December 2, 2005 to retroactively install controls because we
have changed rule requirements, then these particular sources would have
to bear retrofit costs that we do not believe were intended by the CAA.
Immediate compliance would also be an impossibility.

	The commenter states that the statute mandates this result because a
new source is defined as a source constructed or reconstructed after the
Administrator “first proposes” regulations “establishing an
emission standard” applicable to the source.  The commenter thus
concludes that the new source trigger date must be March 24, 1998, the
proposal date of the 1999 rule.  However, EPA did not propose standards
for mercury, hydrocarbons, or HCl for these sources until December 2,
2005; this is why the rule was remanded by the D.C. Circuit.  Hence, for
the HAPs covered by this rule, the new source trigger date must be
December 2, 2005 even under the commenter’s reading.  However, we
repeat that we disagree with the commenter’s interpretation because it
results in situations antithetical to the underlying premise of a new
source standard: namely that amendments to new source standards will
result in existing sources having to comply immediately with both new
source standards and immediate compliance dates.  This would be both
unfair and impossible. Congress simply cannot have intended this result.

Comments:  Regarding the proposed work practice standards for existing
kilns (operate at normal operating conditions and operate a particulate
control device), one commenter states that there is not enough
information to require “normal operating conditions” for kilns and
APCD. According to the commenter, “normal” kiln conditions may not
be best for HCl removal. This commenter also states that existing O&M
and SSM plans already ensure normal operation. Other commenters state
that this proposed work practice is arbitrary as there is no “normal
operating conditions” for all kilns in the U.S. The commenters state
that a multitude of factors – combustion parameters, kiln design, raw
material inputs, fuel characteristics, etc – make this requirement
unworkable. One commenter notes that 40 CFR 63.6(e) already requires
plants to minimize emissions during an SSM event to the extent
consistent with good air pollution practices and with safety
considerations.  The commenter states EPA should clarify that the
proposed requirement to continuously operate kilns under normal
conditions and operate a particulate control device is subject to the
SSM provisions elsewhere in the NESHAP (section 63.6(e)). The same
commenter later submitted another comment restating their position on
HCl that standards for existing and new kilns are not necessary and do
not represent the MACT floor.

Response:  This comment is also moot given EPA’s decision not to set a
standard for HCl based on the authority of section 112 (d) (4) of the
Act.  But we agree that “normal operating conditions” is not
particularly prescriptive.  As noted in the preamble to the proposed
amendments, the alkaline conditions within a cement kiln will result in
removal of a significant amount of HCl and the cement kiln itself
therefore acts as a “control device”.  The underlying intent was
simply to state that kiln and PM controls themselves represent the MACT
floor for existing sources.  The commenter did not provide any suggested
alternative language that would lead us to conclude there is a better
way to capture this intent in a regulation, had we pursued this
approach.

Comment:  One commenter states that EPA has not demonstrated that it has
examined the costs associated with alkaline scrubbers in establishing a
MACT floor for new sources. The commenter states that EPA’s scrubber
costs are not representative of a wet scrubber that can meet limits of
up to 90 percent control of SO2.  According to the commenter, EPA’s
cost are for dry or wet lime spray systems incapable of 90 percent
reduction on preheater/precalciner kilns. The commenter provides capital
and annualized costs for a 1 million tpy kiln of $18 to $25 million and
$4.5 to $7 million, respectively.  The commenter states that using
EPA’s range of 12 to 200 tpy of HCl removal, this translates to a cost
of between $35,000 and $375,000 per ton of HCl removed.  The commenter
states that this range is higher than the range EPA considered
unreasonable for existing kiln beyond-the-floor controls ($8,500 to
$28,000 per ton removed).  The commenter concludes that wet scrubbers
are not a reasonable option.

	The commenter adds that dry or wet lime spray systems can remove SO2
prior to the raw mill but essentially perform the same function as the
raw mill, and therefore achieve an incremental removal efficiency far
below 90 percent.  The commenter states that this would be less cost
effective than EPA described for existing kiln beyond-the-floor
technology.

Response:  This comment is also moot in relation to HCl given EPA’s
decision not to set a standard for HCl based on the authority of section
112(d)(4) of the Act.  However, it now has relevance in regards to the
costs of controlling mercury emissions because we evaluated wet
scrubbers for mercury control after proposal.  We did further
investigate potential costs of alkaline (wet) scrubbers and revised our
cost estimates after proposal based on data developed as part of the
Industrial Boiler NESHAP.  The scrubber costs are based on alkaline
scrubbers specifically designed to remove HCl and/or SO2 from a
coal-fired boiler and we have made the required adjustments in cost to
account for differences in the flue gas characteristics of a cement kiln
versus a coal-fired boiler.

The wet scrubbers that have been applied to cement kilns have SO2
guarantees of over 90 percent reduction or outlet concentrations of 10
ppmv.  Though this point is now moot, we continue to believe that
because HCl is more reactive than SO2, our proposed HCl limits of new
sources of 90 percent reduction or an outlet concentration of 15 ppmv
were very conservative.  In addition, we evaluated the performance of
wet scrubbers in municipal waste combustor and municipal waste
incinerators and on vendor design information and determined that an
alkaline scrubber could achieve 15 ppmv HCl outlet concentrations at low
inlet loadings or at least 90 percent HCl emissions reduction if the
inlet HCl level was 100 ppmv or more (63 FR 14203, March 24, 1998).

Comment:  Regarding beyond-the-floor standards for HCl,  one commenter
states that the CAA does not direct EPA to set standards it views as
reasonable for emissions reduction achieved; rather, the CAA directs EPA
to set standards that reflect the “maximum” degree of reduction that
is “achievable” considering the “cost of achieving such emission
reduction” and the other enumerated statutory factors. According to
the commenter, EPA misinterpreted the CAA, failed to determine the
maximum achievable degree of reduction, and exceeded its authority by
elevating its views about what level of reduction is reasonable for the
emissions reductions achieved over the CAA’s requirement for the
maximum achievable degree of reduction.

One commenter states that because at least two cement kilns already are
using limestone scrubber and RTO control devices that reduce both
organic and inorganic HAPs, including HCl, EPA’s failure to consider
setting beyond-the-floor standards for HCl based on the use of these
controls is unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. The commenter
provided attachments to their comments containing information on these
two systems.

Response:  This comment is moot given EPA’s decision not to set a
standard for HCl based on the authority of section 112 (d)(4) of the
Act.  However, as discussed previously in the response to a similar
comment on potential mercury beyond-the-floor standards, we believe that
“achievable” emission reductions under section 112 (d) (2) means
reductions that are achievable after consideration of costs, energy, and
non-air environmental impacts, consideration of which must be balanced
against potential emission reductions.  See Mossville, 370 F. 3d at 1236
(“[t]he EPA must balance these [emission reduction] considerations
with other factors such as cost, non-air quality health and
environmental concerns, and energy implications”).  The commenter also
claimed that we had not considered the limestone scrubbers and RTO
control in series.  This statement is incorrect.  We did consider
limestone scrubbers as a beyond-the-floor option of HCl control.  The
fact that at two facilities the limestone scrubber is followed by an RTO
has no implications for the overall level of HCl control because the RTO
will not remove additional HCl.  All potential HCl control occurs in the
limestone scrubber.  As discussed below, we did evaluate the performance
of a limestone scrubber/RTO control system as both new source MACT and
as an existing source MACT beyond-the-floor option for THC (non-dioxin
organic HAP) emissions.

Comment:  One commenter states that EPA’s proposed risk-based
exemptions from HCl standards are unlawful, arbitrary and capricious. On
the proposal to develop a single national risk-based HCl standard based
on the reference concentration (RfC) for HCl the commenter states no
national risk-based HCl standard exists making it impossible to comment
effectively on any provisions in the cement rule that might rely on a
hypothetical future rulemaking. The commenter continues stating that any
attempt to set risk-based standards on a national rule that does not
exist and is not currently available for review, would contravene the
CAA notice and comment requirements. The commenter states further that
112(d)(4) allows EPA to set health-based emission standards only for
those pollutants for which a health threshold has been established, and
that no cancer threshold has been set for HCl (nor is there any
classification of HCl with respect to carcinogenicity and none exists).
Also, the commenter states that no non-cancer threshold has been set for
HCl and that the IRIS RfC, on which EPA attempts to rely, does not
purport to be an established threshold. According to the commenter,
disclaimers in IRIS negate any notion that it provides an established
threshold for HCl.

Response:  We largely disagree with these comments.  Section 112 of the
CAA includes exceptions to the general statutory requirement to
establish emission standards based on MACT.  Of relevance here, section
112(d)(4) allows us to develop risk-based standards for HAP “for which
a health threshold has been established” provided that the standards
achieve an “ample margin of safety.” Therefore, we believe we have
the discretion under section 112(d)(4) to develop standards which may be
less stringent than the corresponding floor-based MACT standards for
some categories emitting threshold pollutants, or not to set a standard
if it is apparent that emissions from the source category (i.e. from any
source in the category, or any potential new source) would remain
protective of human health and the environment with an ample margin of
safety.

	There are no data that suggest HCl is carcinogenic in either humans or
animals, so EPA has not developed an assessment for carcinogenicity of
HCl.

The IRIS noncancer assessment for HCl provides a reference concentration
(RfC) for inhalation.  An RfC is not a threshold for adverse effects,
but rather an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily inhalation exposure of the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.  For a
substance having a robust toxicological database, the RfC may approach
the threshold; for a substance (such as HCl) for which the toxicological
database is sparse, the RfC incorporates multiple uncertainty factors
intended to place it at or below the threshold, which is unknown.  See (
 HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm"
http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0396.htm ) for more information.

The existence of a threshold for noncancer effects of HCl is established
by general toxicological principles, i.e., that organisms are able to
repair some amount of corrosive tissue damage of the type caused by HCl.
 If the damage does not exceed an organisms' ability to repair it, then
no adverse effects will occur.  Although the underlying data for HCl did
not identify subthreshold exposures for chronic effects, this was due to
experimental design issues rather than the absence of a threshold.  EPA
is unaware of any studies, theory, or experts that suggest HCl does not
have a threshold for adverse effects.

Comment:  Two commenters submitted comments on the need for HCl
standards. According to the commenters, based on a risk analysis using
14 PH/PC kilns at 13 cement plants using a range of in-stack HCl
concentrations as well as a sensitivity analysis using higher HW kiln
HCl concentrations, risks are well below the short-term and long-term
thresholds. Based on this minimal risk, the commenters state that there
is no need for an HCl standard for new kilns or the proposed operational
standard for existing kilns. The commenters state that additional data
will be submitted to demonstrate that there is minimal risk and no need
for HCl standards.

As stated in its comments on the original proposal, one commenter states
that a standard for HCl is not warranted for either existing or new
sources. Since the close of the previous comment period, the commenter
conducted a study to evaluate the long term and short term health risks
of HCl emissions from 112 kilns at 67 plants. According to the
commenter, risks were assessed using EPA modeling guidance and
conservative modeling assumptions. The commenter states that based on
their analysis, both chronic and acute risks are below acceptable levels
and that none of the kilns studied have the potential to generate HCl
emissions that result in air concentrations exceeding EPA’s reference
concentration (RfC) threshold for chronic health effects or Cal EPA’s
reference exposure level (REL) threshold for acute effects. Based on
these results, the commenter states that there is no justification for
an HCl standard for new or existing cement kilns. The commenter included
a copy of the health risk analysis with their comments. Another
commenter refers to the above information submitted by another commenter
that risks to health from HCl are well below levels acceptable for both
chronic and acute impacts.

Response:  As discussed in section IV.B above, we have reviewed the risk
analysis provided by the PCA and agree that additional control of HCl is
not required.

Comment:  Regarding emission standards for total hydrocarbons (THC), one
commenter states that although EPA has proposed limits, they have not
set standards for the main kiln stack at existing sources and new
sources at existing plants. The commenter states that EPA’s position
on THC standards is unlawful, contemptuous of court, and arbitrary for
the same reasons given by the commenter above regarding EPA position on
mercury standards (see above). The same commenter in a later submission,
states that the preamble to the proposed rule appears to indicate that
EPA did not set emission standards for THC emissions from the kiln’s
main stack, although the regulatory text does specify emission limits
for the kiln’s main stack.

Response:  Since EPA is setting standards for THC (as a surrogate for
non-dioxin organic HAP), and also proposed to do so, this comment is
largely misplaced.  In addition, as previously discussed, we do not
agree with the commenter that the court’s mandate required us to set
standards regardless of the facts.  The court noted that we had
inappropriately limited our analysis to add-on back end control
technologies.  As is the case with mercury and HCl, setting some type of
emission limits based on test data would mean that many facilities would
have to apply a beyond-the-floor add-on control technology to meet the
floor level of control without consideration of the costs, energy, and
nonair environmental impacts.

Comments: One commenter states that EPA has improperly borrowed
standards from its 1999 regulations for hazardous waste combustors,
which were found unlawful and vacated (EPA NOTE: This is incorrect; the
THC rules for hazardous waste incinerators/cement kilns/ lightweight
aggregate kilns were not challenged and were therefore not vacated by
the D.C. Circuit.  See CKRC, 255 F. 3d at 872), rather than setting
standards that reflect the THC or CO emission levels actually achievable
by the best performing sources (12% of cement kilns for existing and
best performing cement kiln for new). The commenter states further that
although maintaining good combustion conditions affects THC emissions,
it is not the only factor that does so and cites the plants’ selection
of raw materials as affecting THC emissions. The commenter states that
EPA’s new greenfield source standard reflects that use of low organic
feed materials affects THC emissions and also cites statements by
Florida DEP and Holcim that selection of feed materials can affect THC
emissions. The commenter states that EPA admits that add-on controls,
e.g., ACI and scrubber/RTO (in use on two kilns), as well as
precalciner/no preheater technology reduce THC emissions. According to
the commenter, because these other factors can affect THC emissions, EPA
has incorrectly set the floor based on good combustion control only. The
commenter states that EPA concedes that cement kilns may be able to
achieve better THC emission levels than through the use of good
combustion alone when it discusses in the proposed rule that
nonhazardous waste cement kilns should be “less challenged” than
hazardous waste kilns in meeting the proposed limits and that the
“lack of any hazardous waste feed for a NHW cement kiln should make it
easier to control the combustion process.” The commenter states that
EPA did not account for the fact that nonhazardous waste burning kilns
can control their combustion conditions and thus THC emission more
easily than hazardous waste burning kilns, instead just borrowing the
standard for hazardous waste burning kilns without attempting to show
that the proposed limits reflect what is actually achievable by the
relevant best performers. According to the commenter, EPA’s arguments
that it does not have to consider factors other than good combustion
were rejected by the court as irrelevant and EPA must set the THC limits
reflecting the average emission level that the best sources actually
achieve.

Response: In the original NESHAP, we noted that THC emissions were
primarily a function of the organic materials in the kiln feed.  As we
have previously discussed, a facility has a starkly limited ability to
change their raw materials to reduce their organic content.  The fact
that individual facilities have successfully reduced organic contents of
their feed materials to reduce THC emissions does not indicate that this
option is available to all facilities.  Therefore, we cannot use this
option as the basis of a national standard for existing facilities.

For new greenfield facilities we established in the 1999 rule that a
facility would have the option to site the quarry at a location with low
enough organic content that they could meet a 50 ppmv THC emissions
limit.  We determined that this was feasible because two facilities had
already done so at the time we promulgated the original NESHAP.  This
limit was not remanded by the court and is currently in effect.

	As we have previously discussed, we do not agree that the court
decision compels us to set a THC standard that will require some sources
to install a beyond-the-floor control technology under the guise of a
floor standard.  These facts have not changed from the original NESHAP.

	However, at proposal we noted that facilities could control THC
resulting from combustion of fuel.  We explained that the basis of the
MACT floor for cement kilns firing hazardous waste was also good
combustion, and these kilns had established limits for THC as a
quantitative measure of good combustion conditions.  Given the fact that
both classes of kilns were using the same method of control, we proposed
to apply the same limits to kilns that did not burn hazardous waste.  We
have no data, and none were supplied by the commenter, to make any
judgments about whether or not kilns that do not burn hazardous waste
could actually meet a more stringent standard.  Because the standards
are based on complete combustion of the fuel, and because of the
extremely high temperatures in the end of the kiln where the fuels are
introduced (both those that burn hazardous waste and those that do not),
we believe that both types of kilns should achieve comparable complete
destruction of organic materials present in the fuels under normal
operating conditions reflecting good combustion.  Simply because we
state that controlling THC emissions from kilns that do not burn
hazardous waste should be less difficult than controlling emissions from
kilns that do burn hazardous waste does not imply that one type of kiln
can achieve a measurably lower THC emission level than another.

Comments:  Several commenters state that it is inappropriate to set THC
floor limits based on a different source category, i.e., hazardous waste
combustors (HWC).  According to the commenters, at issue is the control
of products of incomplete combustion (PIC) vs. control of hydrocarbons
from feed materials. They state that HWC have the option ceasing to burn
hazardous waste when exceeding the limit (and can do so easily using
automatic waste feed cutoff systems) and that the HWC THC standard only
applies when hazardous waste is being burned.

Comments:  Three commenters state that the HWC MACT standards were based
on EPA’s RCRA Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIF) rules, which in turn
were based on the need to safely manage hazardous waste, a need that is
irrelevant to the facilities covered under the current proposal.

Response: We agree with this comment and have removed the proposed
quantified limits for existing sources.  We have not removed the limit
for new sources because the basis of the new source floor (and standard)
is performance of a RTO.  Application of an RTO would allow new cement
kilns to meet a 20 ppmv standard.

Comments:  Three commenters state that EPA has no empirical data
demonstrating that any non-hazardous waste (NHW) kiln can achieve the
proposed limits on a continuous basis. One commenter states that bench
scale studies estimated that for varying organic levels, 47 percent of
samples would have resulted in emissions that exceed the 20 ppmv limit.

Response:  We agree with this comment and have removed the proposed
limits for existing sources.  We have not removed the limit of new
sources because the basis of the new source floor is now a RTO.
Application of an RTO would allow the facilities noted in the comment to
meet a 20 ppmv standard.

Comment:  Three commenters state that the contribution to THC/CO from
raw materials outweighs the measure of THC/CO for good combustion of
hazardous waste fuels. Thus, THC and CO are not useful indicators of
good combustion.  One commenter notes that available information shows
that it is difficult to correlate HC and HAP emissions.  The commenter
further states that several studies show that neither THC nor CO is a
reliable surrogate for good combustion or PIC or HAP emissions.
According to the commenter, HC emissions are a function of 1) raw
material organic content, 2) source of fuel and firing location, 3)
temperature profile, 4) oxygen concentration, and 5) type of
manufacturing process. One commenter states that the high temperatures
required for the formation of cement clinker (>2700F) ensure as complete
combustion of fuels as is possible.

Response:  We agree with the comment that because organic contributions
from processing raw materials is the chief contributor to measured THC
levels (since such emissions are not combusted and hence are not largely
destroyed), having a quantified limit for THC as a measure of good
combustion is not appropriate for existing cement kilns that do not burn
hazardous waste.  We disagree with the more general statements regarding
the appropriateness of a THC indicator for organic HAP, and indeed are
continuing to utilize THC as an indicator for new sources.  As noted in
the proposal of the original NESHAP, the organic HAP component of THC
emissions varies widely (63 FR 14196).  However, THC emissions do
contain organic HAP.  Applying MACT to THC emissions will also control
organic HAP, but will be less costly than attempting to set individual
limits for each individual organic HAP (64 FR 31918).

	We also agree with the comment that combustion conditions in the hot
end of the kiln where fuels are fired should assure destruction of
organics (including organic HAP) in the fuel.  For this reason, we
adhere to our position at proposal that good combustion conditions in
the cement kiln should assure destruction of organic HAP in fuel and
represents the measure of best performance for reducing emissions of
organic HAP from existing cement kilns.  As explained in section I.C
above, we have chosen a different means of expressing good combustion
conditions than the quantified THC limit which we proposed.

Comment:  Three commenters state that it is inappropriate to apply
limits for non-dioxin organic HAP when feed materials have varying
levels of organics, which EPA acknowledges by setting THC limits only
for new greenfield sources (EPA also applied variability of feed/fuel
materials in justifying rules or lack of rules for mercury, HCl and
non-mercury metals).  Two commenters add that a Reaction Engineering
study shows that organics emitted from kiln feed is extremely variable
across the country with levels varying by over four orders of magnitude.

Response:  We agree with these comments and have made appropriate
changes in the final rule to the proposed floor for existing cement
kilns’ non-dioxin organic HAP emissions to account for the essentially
uncontrollable variability in organic HAP levels in raw materials.

Comment:  A commenter states that EPA failed to consider the reduction
in THC as part of the beyond-the-floor analysis of ACI. According to the
commenter, organic HAPs potentially controlled by ACI include
polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic organic matter, and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons. According to the commenter, to determine the maximum
degree of reduction in THC emissions that is achievable for cement
kilns, the CAA requires that EPA evaluate the reductions achievable
through the use of ACI.

	One commenter states that 1) EPA did not determine, as required by the
CAA for beyond-the-floor standards, the maximum degree of reduction in
THC emissions achievable through good combustion practices; 2) EPA did
not show that its standards reflect the maximum degree of reduction
achievable through combustion controls in light of its findings that
nonhazardous waste burning kilns should be able to achieve the THC
standards more easily than hazardous waste burning kilns; 3) EPA did not
determine the maximum degree of reduction achievable through the
judicious selection of raw materials although they acknowledge that such
methods will control THC emissions and that kilns are already using it
and can control THC emissions through the use of other materials such as
fly ash and kilns can and do import raw materials from sources that are
not co-located or immediately nearby; 4) EPA did not determine the
degree of reduction achievable through the use of end-of-stack controls
already in use in the cement industry, including ACI, which EPA only
considered for mercury and dioxin control and which would reduce THC
emissions significantly and also reduce mercury and dioxin emissions EPA
NOTE: since the rule already contains a standard for dioxin, incremental
reductions attributable to use of ACI are quite small; see section
IV.A.2 above); 5) EPA failed to determine the maximum degree of
reduction achievable through the use of limestone scrubber/RTO even
though the agency is aware that such devices can significantly reduce
emissions of THC (as well as HCl) and are already in use in the industry
and does not contend that they are too expensive; and 6) EPA failed to
consider or determine the maximum degree of reduction achievable through
the use of a carbon coke filter system such as the Polvitec system in
use at Holcim’s Zurich plant. For the reasons (1-7) listed above, the
commenter states that EPA’s beyond-the-floor analysis for THC
contravenes CAA 112(d)(2) which requires that EPA’s final standards
reflect the maximum degree of reduction achievable through any and all
reduction measures, and any claim that EPA’s THC standard reflects the
maximum achievable degree of reduction would be arbitrary and capricious
in light of EPA’s failure to consider these technologies or explain
its decision not to base beyond-the-floor standards on any or all of
them.

Response:  We have no actual test data to establish the impact of ACI on
THC emissions.  There is one facility that uses ACI to reduce THC
emissions.  However, all the THC test data are after control.  We have
no data without control that would allow us to determine control
effectiveness in reducing THC emissions.  However, according to the
facility emission reductions are approximately 50 percent.  In addition,
the facility in question is extremely unusual in that the uncontrolled
THC emission levels are much higher than any other facility in the
source category.  Therefore, we do not believe that the performance of
ACI at this facility on THC emissions can be extrapolated to the source
category as a whole.  However, we did evaluate the potential impacts of
ACI on THC emission using an assumed emission reduction of 50 percent.
The results of this analysis are presented in section IV.A.2 above.

	The commenter also stated that we did not assess the maximum degree of
THC reduction achievable by optimized combustion practices.  There are
no data available to perform this type of analysis and none were
provided by the commenter.  Moreover, THC levels significantly below
those associated with good combustion conditions are not necessarily
indicative of further organic HAP reductions.  See discussion at 70 FR
59462-63 (October 12, 2005).

We also did not evaluate the degree to which “judicious selection”
of raw materials can be used to reduce THC emissions, except that we
have previously established that a greenfield facility can limit THC
emission to 50 ppmv by selection of limestone with sufficiently low
organic materials contents.  We are aware that cement production
facilities can import some raw materials from sources other then those
nearby.  However, the fact that in some cases materials can be imported
from a farther distance does not change the fact that each individual
cement facility has specific raw materials needs based on their
particular limestone and other raw materials.  We do not have data, nor
are data available, to develop a national rule that would cover every
possible raw material substitution to reduce THC emissions.

	The commenter also stated we did not assess the maximum degree of
emission reduction achievable through the use of end-of-stack controls.
However, as previously discussed, there are no data available for us to
perform this analysis for any controls other then an RTO.  In the case
of an RTO, we have evaluated its performance as a beyond-the-floor
control.  In that case, we determined requiring a facility to apply an
RTO as a beyond-the-floor option was not achievable, within the meaning
of section 112(d)(2), due to the high costs and adverse energy
utilization impacts.

	The commenter also stated we had not considered the use of a carbon
coke system.  The source for this comment notes that there was one
facility in Europe.  We note the plant in question was designed to burn
pelletized sewage sludge.  The source of the comment does not indicate
the performance or costs of this system.  We assume it would perform
similarly to a carbon adsorption system, which achieves emission
reductions similar to those of an RTO.  We believe that the wet
scrubber/RTO system, which is demonstrated on a cement kiln in the
United States, is a viable beyond-the-floor option.  Given the lack of
demonstration of a carbon coke filter in this country, the fact that it
is unlikely to perform any better than an RTO, and a viable alternative
as a beyond-the-floor option, we do not believe consideration of a
carbon coke filter is warranted.

Comment:  Several commenters oppose EPA’s proposed regulation of area
sources for THC. Three commenters state that there is no legal basis for
regulating area sources.  The commenters note that there is no
“statement of basis and purpose” as required by CAA 307(d)(3).

	One commenter recommends that EPA exempt area sources, which would
experience the same cost as major sources with fewer benefits; or
consider less stringent options, e.g., periodic stack test rather than
CEM.

Response:  As previously noted, in the original NESHAP we regulated THC
emissions from area sources because the THC emissions from a cement kiln
are likely to contain POM.  This pollutant is listed in section
112(c)(6) of the CAA as a pollutant for which we are specifically
required to establish regulations under section 112(d)(2).  The
commenter provided no data that would lead us to change this
determination (63 FR 14193-94).  Moreover, the commenter did not address
the argument that this result follows from section 112 (c) (6), so EPA
does not understand the comment that there is no legal authority to
support regulation of area source cement kiln emissions of HAP
enumerated in section 112 (c) (6).

Comment:  One commenter states that the requirement for THC CEM will
impose additional cost for no benefit. The commenter recommends that EPA
eliminate numerical limits or require less costly monitoring options,
e.g., periodic stack testing. The commenter recommends that if EPA does
require CEM, extend the compliance date to at least 2 years because the
State certification process requires more than 1 year.

Response:  We have not adopted a requirement that existing sources
install a THC monitor.  For new sources, the compliance date is
ordinarily the effective date of the rule or startup, whichever is
later.  See section 112(i)(1).  However, in this case, because the new
source standard is more stringent than proposed, sources which commenced
construction or reconstruction after December 2, 2005, will have until
[INSERT DATE THREE YEARS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] to
comply.  See section 112(i)(1).

Comment:  Two commenters favor including all crushers in the Portland
cement NESHAP and establishing emission limits for crushers based on the
requirements in 40 CFR Subpart OOO, if they satisfy the requirements of
the CAA. One commenter cites State requirements for primary crushers of
10 percent opacity, work practices, and a baghouse with outlet
concentration of 0.01 gr/dscf; secondary crushers are subject to a 20
percent opacity limit. The commenter provided a copy of their State
requirements for crushers at cement manufacturing facilities.

One commenter states that applicability based on location relevant to
other sources is confusing and recommended that EPA put all appropriate
requirements for the sources in one requirement and remove 63.1340(c)
altogether.

Response: We agree that applicability based on location relevant to
other sources is confusing.  However, in our final determination on this
issue we decided that crushers should not be covered under this NESHAP.
The reasons are first, we have no definitive information that there are
any facilities that currently have crushers after raw materials storage.
 Second, we have no data to set a floor for existing crushers that might
potentially be covered.  We considered using the current Nonmetallic
Mineral NSPS, which established standards of performance for new
crushers.  But we have no data to determine if the NSPS for this source
category would be an appropriate MACT floor.  Finally, we believe we can
resolve the issue by simply stating that crushers are not covered by
this regulation.  It was never our intent that this rule regulate
equipment typically associated with another source category.

Comment:  One commenter states that all of the raw material handling and
storage, except crushing, should be covered by the portland cement
NESHAP. They state that the only non-metallic mining activities subject
to the NSPS Subpart OOO are at the quarry and at the crusher. The
commenter states that under the alternative interpretation offered by
EPA, several steps characteristic of cement manufacturing would not be
included in Subpart LLL, for example the “on-line” measurement
devices such as cross-belt neutron analyzers that are used in the
preblending and proportioning steps. The commenter states further that
the raw mix fed to the raw mill is the product of the very careful
instrumentally-aided proportioning and blending operation that is one of
the most important series of steps in the cement manufacturing process.

Response: We agree with this comment

VII.  Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A.  What facilities are affected by the final amendments?

	We estimate that there are approximately 94 cement plants currently in
operation.  These 94 plants have a total of 158 NHW cement kilns.  We
estimate that twenty new kilns wit a capacity of 20,900,000 tpy of
clinker capacity will be subject to the final amendments by the end of
the fifth year after promulgation of the amendments.  Note that national
impacts are based on the estimated capacity increase, not on a specific
number of model kilns.

B.  What are the air quality impacts?

	For existing kilns, we estimate that the impacts of the amendments will
essentially be zero because we believe that all existing kilns are
already performing the work practices prescribed in the amendments.  For
the twenty new kilns the   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 variation in mercury and
hydrocarbon emissions from kilns makes it difficult to quantify impacts
on a national basis with any accuracy.

For mercury emissions wwe estimate a new kiln with a capacity of 650,000
typ of climker will have an emission reduction ranging from zero to 280
pounds per year.  We estimate the national mercury emissions reduction
to be 1300 to 3000 pounds per year in the fifth year after promulgation.

Reported hydrocarbon emission test results range from less than 1 ppmv
dry basis (at 7 percent oxygen) to over 140 ppmv dry basis (Docket
A-92-53) measured at the main kiln stack.  For 52 kilns tested for
hydrocarbon emissions (Docket A-92-53), approximately 25 percent had
emissions of hydrocarbons that exceeded the 20 ppmv THC limit at the
main stack.  The average hydrocarbon emissions for the kilns exceeding
20 ppmv was 62.5 ppmv.  Assuming that most new kilns will be sited at
existing locations this would imply that 15 out of 20 new kilns will
have no THC emissions reduction as a result of the THC Standard.  For a
new kiln that, in the absence of the standard, would emit near the
average hydrocarbon level of 62.5 ppmv, the application of new source
MACT consisting of an RTO would result in a reduction of about 196 tpy
for a 650,000 tpy kiln.  We also estimate that for 15 percent of the new
kiln capacity will have uncontrolled emissions that exceed the 20 ppmv
limit, but will use alternatives to application of an RTO (such as ACI)
to meet the THC emissions limit.  These kilns will achieve an emissions
reduction of approximately 103 tpy for a new 650,000 tpy new kiln.  The
total national reduction will be 1100 tpy in the fifth year after
promulgation of the standard.

	The THC amd mercury standards for new sources will also result in
concurrent control of SO2 emissions.  For kilns that elect to use an RTO
to comply with the THC emissions limit it is necessary to install an
alkaline scrubber upstream of the RTO to control acid gas and to provide
additional control of PM.  We estimate that approximatley 25 percent of
the additional capacity built in the next five years will have to
install wet scrubbers for mercury control, and 10 percent will install a
wet scrubber/RTO system for THC control.  The SO2 emissions reductions
for a new 650,000 tpy kiln will be approximately 320 tpy, and is
estimated as 3640 nationally.

Note that we have determined that reducing SO2 emissions also results in
a reduction in fine particle emissions because some SO2 is converted to
sulfates in the atmosphere.  Therefore, the THC standards will also
result in a reduction in emissions of fine PM.

	In addition to the direct air emissions impacts, there will be
secondary air impacts that result in the increased electrical demand
generated by new sources' control equipment.  These emissions will be an
increase in emissions of pollutants from utility boilers that supply
electricity to the portland cement facilities.  Assuming two new kilns
will install a scrubber followed by an RTO, , three will install an ACI
system, and 5 willl install wet scrubbers, we estimate these increases
to be 105 tpy of NOx, 47 tpy of CO, 157 tpy of SO2, and 5 tpy of PM at
the end of the 5th year after promulgation.

C.  What are the water quality impacts?

	There should be no water quality impacts for the proposed amendments.
The requirement for new sources to use alkaline scrubbers upstream of
the RTO will produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste stream.  However, we
are assuming the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered and disposed
of as solid waste.  Water from the dewatering process will be recycled
back to the scrubber. Although there will be no water quality impacts,
addition of a scrubber will increase water usage by about 41 million
gallons per year (gpy) for each new 650,000 tpy kiln that installs a
scrubber, or a national total of 460 million gpy.

D.  What are the solid waste impacts?

	The solid waste impact will be the generation of scrubber slurry that
is assumed to be dewatered and disposed of as solid waste, and solid
waste from the ACI systems.  The amount of solid waste produced is
estimated as 519,300 tpy in the fifth year after promulgation of the
amendments.

E.  What are the energy impacts?

	Requiring new kilns to install and operate alkaline scrubbers and RTOs
will result in increased energy use due to the electrical requirements
for the scrubber and increased fan pressure drops, and natural gas to
fuel the RTO.  We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 41
million kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 271 billion cubic
feet by the end of the 5th year.

F.  What are the cost impacts?

	The final rule amendments should impose minimal costs on existing
sources.  These costs will be recordkeeping costs for CKD wastage.  The
costs for new sources include the THC monitor and recordkeeping costs
for CKD wastage on all new kilns, and a wet scrubber/RTO on two of the
new kilns.  The estimated capital cost for a new 650,000 tpy kiln to
install a THC monitor is $140,000, to install a wet scrubber is 2.7
million, and to install a wet scrubber/RTO is $10.7 million.  For kilns
where the uncontrolled THC emissions are below 40 ppmv, we are assuming
they will opt for a lower cost THC control, such as ACI.  The estimated
capital cost for ACI applied to a new 650,000 tpy kiln is $1.0 to $1.6
million.  The total estimated national capital cost at the end of the
fifth year after promulgation is $64 to $67 million.  The estimated
annualized cost per new 650,000 tpy kiln is an estimated as $34,000 to
$37,000 for kilns a THC monitor, $470,000 to $597,000 for ACI, 1.4 to
1.5 million for a wet scrubber, and $3.6 to $3.9 million for a wet
scrubber/RTO.  National annualized costs by the end of the fifth year
will be an estimated $26 to $28 million.

G.  What are the economic impacts?

The   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA conducted an economic analysis of the
amendments to the NESHAP which have cost implications.  For existing
sources the only requirement with any cost implication is the
requirement to keep records of CKD wastage.  These costs are very small.
 We assessed earlier portland cement regulations with greater per source
costs, and those costs did not have a significant effect on the cost of
goods produced.  Since the conditions that produced those conclusions
still exist today, EPA asserts these new regulations will not have a
discernible impact on the portland cement market for existing sources.

	For new sources, both the magnitude of control costs needed to comply
with the final amendments and the distribution of these costs among
affected facilities have a role in determining how the market will
change.  The final amendments will require all new kilns constructed on
or after December 2, 2005, to install THC monitors.  As with existing
sources, the cost on a THC monitor is not significant compared to the
costs assessed in the earlier regulations.  However, the cost for ACI or
for the wet scrubbers/RTO systems are significant.  We estimate that
three of the 20 new kilns will have to install ACI, two the 20 new kilns
will be required to install a wet scrubber/RTO system to meet the limits
for THC, and five kilns will install a wet scrubber to meet the new
source mercury limits.

Because of the high cost of transportation compared to the value of
Portland cement, the market for Portland cement is localized and
characterized by imperfect competition.  The possible outcomes of the
final amendments are either a deferral in bringing the new kiln into
production or a price increase in the immediate region around the two
new kilns that face control costs.  For perfect competition, control
costs at a new facility will be completely passed on in the long run to
the purchaser of the good.  With imperfect competition the outcome is
harder to predict.  Less than full cost pass through is a likely
possibility.

The model new kilns used in this analysis has a clinker capacity of
650,000 tons/yr.  The annual control cost would be up to $597,000 for a
kilns that applies ACI , 1.5 million for a kiln that applies a wet
scrubber, and $3.9 million for a kiln that applies an scrubber/RTO, in
2002 dollars.  Clinker is an intermediate good in the production of
Portland cement and corresponds to a Portland cement capacity of 720,000
tons/yr.  To compare the costs to the value of the Portland cement in
2004 of $85 for a national average mill value we use the Chemical
Engineering Plant Cost Index for 2004 and 2002 to get a 2004 annual cost
of $640,000 for kilns that require ACI, $1.7 million for kiln that apply
wet scrubbers, and $4.4 million for those that apply an scrubber/RTO.
The value of the Portland cement produced in a year at the $85 price
would be $61 million.  If the cost were to be fully passed on to the
purchaser in a higher price the price would increase by 1.0 to 7.2
percent, to values of $86 to $91, respectively.

With the increasing demand for Portland cement and the high capacity
utilization of existing plants and the nature of the regional markets,
it is unlikely that the new kilns would be delayed.  Because of the
imperfect competition, it is likely in the regions around the two new
kilns facing control, the price of the Portland cement would increase
but by less than the 1.0 to 7.2 percent that would be required to fully
cover the control costs.

VII.  Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

	Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is "significant" and, therefore,
subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 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 obligations 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.

	It   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 was been determined that the proposed
amendments are not a "significant regulatory action" under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.  The
final amendments were determined to be a significant regulatory action
and are being submitted to OMB for review.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1
Changes made in response to suggestions or recommendations from OMB will
be documented and included in the public record.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

	The information collection requirements in the existing rule were
submitted to and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501, et seq., and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0416.  An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1801.02) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.  A copy may
also be downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The information collection requirements in this
final rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.  The Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA
has been assigned EPA ICR number 1801.05.

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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.

	These requirements include records of CKD removal from the kiln system
at all existing and new sources, and requirements for new kilns
constructed after December 2, 2005, to install and test a continuous
monitor to measure THC.  We expect these additional requirements to
affect 106 facilities over the first 3 years.  The estimated annual
average burden is outlined below

Affected entity	Total Hours	Labor Costs	Total annual O&M costs	Total
Costs

Industry ......

Implementing .. Agency	4,447

357	$703,325

$22,962	$88,292

NA	$865,646

$25,362

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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 review instructions; 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; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and 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 EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (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 impact of today’s proposed rule
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as:  (1) A small
business that has fewer than 750 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 final rule
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly regulated by the final rule amendments are
small businesses.  We determined there are six or seven small businesses
in this industry out of a total of 44.  Each small business operates a
single plant with one or more kilns.   The total annualized cost per
existing kiln is nominal.  The revenue for the entire small business
sector is estimated to be around $260 million (2003 dollars).  New
sources, will incur higher costs because new kilns must install a THC
monitor, and approximately three of the 20 new kilns will have to
install ACI and two will have to install a wet scrubber/RTO system for
THC control.  For new sources that must install controls, the cost of
control is estimated to be one to seven percent of the expected revenue
from a new kiln.  We currently do not have any information on plans for
small businesses to build new kilns.

	Although the final rule amendments will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of the final amendments on small entities.
The emission standards are representative of the floor level of
emissions control, which is the minimum level of control allowed under
the CAA.  Further, the costs of required performance testing and
monitoring for new sources have been minimized by specifying emissions
limits and monitoring parameters in terms of surrogates for HAP
emissions, which are less costly to measure.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  	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, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a
cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal
mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any 1 year.  Before promulgating a rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA 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 EPA to adopt an alternative other than the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if
the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

	The EPA has determined that the final rule amendments do not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments significantly or
uniquely impact small governments, because they contain no requirements
that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.  Thus,
today's final rule amendments are not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132, Federalism

	Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA 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."

 	The final rule amendments do not have federalism implications.  The
final rule amendments 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,
because State and local governments do not own or operate any sources
that would be subject to the proposed rule amendments.  Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to the final rule amendments.

F.  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.”  The final rule amendments do not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because
tribal governments do not own or operate any sources subject to
today’s action.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the
proposed rule amendments.

G.  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 EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must 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 the Agency.

	The EPA interprets 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 rule.  The final rule amendments are not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on technology
performance and not on health or safety risks.

H.  Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy,
Supply, Distribution, or Use

	This 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.  These rule
requirements will have energy effects due to the energy requirements for
the control devices required for new sources.  We estimate the
additional electrical demand to be 15 million kWhr per year and the
natural gas use to be 270 billion cubic feet by the end of the 5th year.
 We do not consider these energy impacts to be significant.

I.  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, Section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.  The VCS are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies.  The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.

	This final rule involves technical standards.  The EPA cites EPA Method
29 of 40 CFR part 60 for measurement of mercury emissions in stack gases
for new cement kilns.

	Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods.  The search and
review results are in the docket for this rule.

	One voluntary consensus standard was identified as an acceptable
alternative to an EPA test method for the purposes of the final rule.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6784-02, “Standard Test Method
for Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated
from Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method),” is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only) as a
method for measuring mercury.

	The search for emissions measurement procedures identified two other
voluntary consensus standards.  The EPA determined that these two
standards identified for measuring emissions of the HAPs or surrogates
subject to emission standards in this 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
the determinations for the two methods are discussed below.

	The voluntary consensus standard EN 13211:2001, “Air
Quality--Stationary Source Emissions--Determination of the Concentration
of Total Mercury,” is not acceptable as an alternative to the mercury
portion of EPA Method 29 primarily because it is not validated for use
with impingers, as in the EPA method, although the standard describes
procedures for the use of impingers.  This European standard is
validated for the use of fritted bubblers only and requires the use of a
side (split) stream arrangement for isokinetic sampling because of the
low sampling rate of the bubblers (up to 3 liters per minute, maximum).
Also, only two bubblers (or impingers) are required by EN 13211, whereas
the EPA method requires the use of six impingers.  In addition, EN 13211
does not include many of the quality control procedures of the EPA
methods, especially for the use and calibration of temperature sensors
and controllers, sampling train assembly and disassembly, and filter
weighing.

	The voluntary consensus standard CAN/CSA Z223.26-M1987, “Measurement
of Total Mercury in Air Cold Vapour Atomic Absorption
Spectrophotometeric Method,” is not acceptable as an alternative to
EPA Method 29 (for mercury).  This standard is not acceptable because of
the lack of detail in quality control.  Specifically, CAN/CSA Z223.26
does not include specifications for the number of calibration samples to
be analyzed, procedures to prevent carryover from one sample to the
next, and procedures for subtraction of the instrument response to
calibration blank as in the EPA method.  Also, CAN/CSA Z223.26 does not
require that the calibration curve be forced through or close to zero
(or a point no further than ±2 percent of the recorder full scale) as
in the EPA method.  Also, CAN/CSA Z223.26 does not include a procedure
to assure that two consecutive peak heights agree within 3 percent of
their average value and that the peak maximum is greater than
10 percent of the recorder full scale, as in the EPA methods.  CAN/CSA
Z223.26 does not include instructions for a blank and a standard to be
run at least every five samples, and specifications for the peak height
of the blank and the standard as in the EPA method.

	Section 63.1349 to subpart LLL of this rule lists the testing methods
included in the regulation.  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 required testing methods, performance specifications, or
procedures.

J.  Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective on [INSERT THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL AMENDMENTS IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 ______________

Dated:

______________________

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40,
chapter I, part 63 of the Code of the Federal Regulations is 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 LLL-[AMENDED]

2.  §63.1342 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1342  Standards:  General.

	Table 1 to this subpart provides cross references to the 40 CFR part
63, subpart A, general provisions, indicating the applicability of the
general provisions requirements to subpart LLL.

3.  Section 63.1343 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1343  Standards for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.

	(a)  General.  The provisions in this section apply to each kiln, each
in-line kiln/raw mill, and any alkali bypass associated with that kiln
or in-line kiln/raw mill.  All gaseous, mercury and D/F emission limits
are on a dry basis, corrected to 7 percent oxygen.  All total
hydrocarbon (THC) emission limits are measured as propane.  The block
averaging periods to demonstrate compliance are hourly for 20 ppmv total
hydrocarbon (THC) limits and monthly for the 50 ppmv THC limit.

(b) Existing kilns located at major sources. No owner or operator of an
existing kiln or an existing kiln/raw mill located at a facility that is
a major source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources, any gases
which:

(1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of 0.15 kg per Mg (0.30 lb
per ton) of feed (dry basis) to the kiln. When there is an alkali bypass
associated with a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill, the combined
particulate matter emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and
the alkali bypass are subject to this emission limit.

(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent.

(3) Contain D/F in excess of:

(i) 0.20 ng per dscm (8.7×10−11 gr per dscf) (TEQ); or

(ii) 0.40 ng per dscm (1.7×10−10 gr per dscf) (TEQ) when the average
of the performance test run average temperatures at the inlet to the
particulate matter control device is 204 °C (400 °F) or less.

 (c) Reconstructed or new kilns located at major sources.  No owner or
operator of a reconstructed or new kiln or reconstructed or new inline
kiln/raw mill located at a facility which is a major source subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from these affected sources any gases which:

(1) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0.15 kg per Mg (0.30 lb per
ton) of feed (dry basis) to the kiln. When there is an alkali bypass
associated with a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill, the combined
particulate matter emissions from the kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill and
the bypass stack are subject to this emission limit.

(2) Exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent.

(3) Contain D/F in excess of:

(i) 0.20 ng per dscm (8.7×10−11 gr per dscf) (TEQ; or

(ii) 0.40 ng per dscm (1.7×10−10 gr per dscf) (TEQ) when the average
of the performance test run average temperatures at the inlet to the
particulate matter control device is 204 °C (400 °F) or less.

(4) Contain total hydrocarbons (THC), from the main exhaust of the kiln,
or main exhaust of the in-line kiln/raw mill, in excess of 20 ppmv if
the source is a new or reconstructed source that commenced construction
after December 2, 2005.  As an alternate to meeting the 20 ppmv standard
you may demonstrate a 98 percent reduction of THC emissions from the
exit of the kiln to discharge to the atmosphere.  If the source is a
greenfield kiln that commenced construction prior to December 2, 2005,
then the THC limit is 50 ppmv.

(5)	Contain mercury from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust
of the in-line kiln/raw mill, or the alkali bypass in excess of 41
µg/dscm if the source is a new or reconstructed source that commenced
construction after December 2, 2005.  As an alternate to meeting the 41
µg/dscm standard you may route the emissions through a packed bed or
spray tower wet scrubber with a liquid–to-gas (l/g) ratio of 30
gallons per 1000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm) or more.

	(d) Existing kilns located at area sources.  No owner or operator of an
existing kiln or an existing in-line kiln/raw mill located at a facility
that is an area source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources
any gases which:

−11 gr per dscf) (TEQ); or

(2) Contain D/F in excess of 0.40 ng per dscm (1.7×10−10 gr per dscf)
(TEQ) when the average of the performance test run average temperatures
at the inlet to the particulate matter control device is 204 °C (400
°F) or less.

	(e) New or reconstructed kilns located at area sources. No owner or
operator of a new or reconstructed kiln or new or reconstructed in-line
kiln/raw mill located at a facility that is an area source subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere from these affected sources any gases which:

(1) Contain D/F in excess of:

−11 gr per dscf) (TEQ; or

(ii) 0.40 ng per dscm (1.7×10−10 gr per dscf) (TEQ) when the average
of the performance test run average temperatures at the inlet to the
particulate matter control device is 204 °C (400 °F) or less.

(2) Contain total hydrocarbons (THC), from the main exhaust of the kiln,
or main exhaust of the in-line kiln/raw mill, in excess of 20 ppmv if
the source is a new or reconstructed source that commenced construction
after December 2, 2005.  As an alternate to meeting the 20 ppmv standard
you may demonstrate a 98 percent reduction of THC emissions from the
exit of the kiln to discharge to the atmosphere.  If the source is a
greenfield kiln that commenced construction prior to December 2, 2005,
then the THC limit is 50 ppmv.

(3)	Contain mercury from the main exhaust of the kiln, or main exhaust
of the in-line kiln/raw mill, or the alkali bypass in excess of 41
µg/dscm if the source is a new or reconstructed source that commenced
construction after December 2, 2005.  As an alternate to meeting the 41
µg/dscm standard you may route the emissions through a packed bed or
spray tower wet scrubber with a l/g ratio of 30 gallons per 1000 acfm or
more.

4.  Section 63.1344 is amended as follows:

a.  revising paragraphs (c) through (e);

b.  adding add apragraphs(f) through (i)

§63.1344  Operating limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.

* * * * *

(c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a mercury,
THC or D/F emission limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon
injection as an emission control technique must operate the carbon
injection system in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
section.

(1) The three-hour rolling average activated carbon injection rate shall
be equal to or greater than the activated carbon injection rate
determined in accordance with §63.1349(b)(3)(vi).

(2) The owner or operator shall either:

(i) Maintain the minimum activated carbon injection carrier gas flow
rate, as a three-hour rolling average, based on the manufacturer's
specifications. These specifications must be documented in the test plan
developed in accordance with §63.7(c), or

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

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, the owner or
operator of an affected source subject to a mercury, THC or D/F emission
limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon injection as an emission
control technique must specify and use the brand and type of activated
carbon used during the performance test until a subsequent performance
test is conducted, unless the site-specific performance test plan
contains documentation of key parameters that affect adsorption and the
owner or operator establishes limits based on those parameters, and the
limits on these parameters are maintained.

(e) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a D/F, THC,
or mercury emission limitation under §63.1343 that employs carbon
injection as an emission control technique may substitute, at any time,
a different brand or type of activated carbon provided that the
replacement has equivalent or improved properties compared to the
activated carbon specified in the site-specific performance test plan
and used in the performance test. The owner or operator must maintain
documentation that the substitute activated carbon will provide the same
or better level of control as the original activated carbon.

(f)  Existing kilns and in-line kilns/raw mills must implement good
combustion practices (GCP) designed to minimize THC from fuel
combustion.  Good combustion practices include training all operators
and supervisors to operate and maintain the kiln and calciner, and
pollution control systems in accordance with good engineering practices.
The training shall include good operating practices as well as methods
for minimizing excess emissions.

	(g)  All kilns and in-line kilns/raw mills may not use as a raw
material or fuel any fly ash where the mercury content of the fly ash
has been increased through the use of activated carbon, or any other
sorbent unless the facility can demonstrate that the use of that fly ash
will not result in an increase in mercury emissions over baseline
emissions (i.e. emissions not using the fly ash).

	(h)  All kilns and in-line kilns/raw mills must remove (i.e. not
recycle to the kiln) from the kiln system sufficient cement kiln dust to
maintain the desired product quality.

	(i)	New and reconstructed kilns and in-line kilns/raw mills must not
exceed the avrage hourly CKD recycle rate measured during mercury
performance testing.  Any exceedance of this average hourly rate is
considered a violation of the standard.

5.  Section 63.1346 is revised to read as follows:

§ 63.1346 Standards for new or reconstructed raw material dryers.

(a) New or reconstructed raw material dryers located at facilities that
are major sources can not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which:

(i)  exhibit opacity greater than ten percent, or

(ii)  contain THC in excess of 20 ppmv, on a dry basis as propane
corrected to 7 percent oxygen if the source commenced construction on or
after December 2, 2005.  As an alternative to the 20 ppmv standard, you
may demonstrate a 98 percent reduction in THC emissions from the exit of
the raw materials dryer to discharge to the atmosphere.  If the source
is a greenfield dryer constructed prior to December 2, 2005, then the
THC limit is 50 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

(b) New or reconstructed raw materials dryers located at a facility that
is an area source can not discharge to the atmosphere any gases which
contain THC in excess of 20 ppmv, on a dry basis as propane corrected to
7 percent oxygen if the source commenced construction on or after
December 2, 2005.  As an alternative to the 20 ppmv standard, you may
demonstrate a 98 percent reduction in THC emissions from the exit of the
raw materials dryer to discharge to the atmosphere.  If the source is a
greenfield dryer constructed prior to December 2, 2005, then the THC
limit is 50 ppmv, on a dry basis corrected to 7 percent oxygen.

6.  Section 63.1349 is amended as follows:

a.  By revising paragraph (b)(4)

b.  By adding paragraph (b)(5)

c.  By removing paragraph (f).

§63.1349  Performance Testing Requirements.

	* * * * *

	(b) * * *

	(4)  (i)  The owner or operator of an affected source subject to
limitations on emissions of THC shall demonstrate initial compliance
with the THC limit by operating a continuous emission monitor in
accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60 of
this chapter. The duration of the performance test shall be three hours,
and the average THC concentration (as calculated from the one-minute
averages) during the three hour performance test shall be calculated.
The owner or operator of an in-line kiln/raw mill shall demonstrate
initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the
raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is under normal operating
conditions and while the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw mill is not
operating.

(ii)  The owner or operator of an affected source subject to limitations
on emissions of THC who elects to demonstrate compliance with the
alternative THC emission limit of 98 percent weight reduction must
demonstrate compliance by also operating a continuous emission monitor
in accordance with Performance Specification 8A of appendix B to part 60
at the inlet to the THC control device of the kiln, inline kiln raw
mill, or raw materials dryer in the same manner as prescribed in
paragraph (i) above.  Alternately, you may elect to demonstrate a 98
weight percent reduction in THC across the control device using the
performance test requirements in 40 CFR part 63 subpart SS.

(5)	The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill subject to
the 41 µg/dscm mercury standard shall demonstrate compliance using EPA
Method 29 of 40 CFR part 60.  ASTM D6784-02, Standard Test Method for
Elemental, Oxidized, Particle-Bound and Total Mercury Gas Generated from
Coal-Fired Stationary Sources (Ontario Hydro Method), is an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 29 (portion for mercury only).  If the kiln
has an in-line raw mill, you You must demonstrate compliance with both
raw mill off and raw mill on.  You must record the hourly recycle rate
of CKD during both test conditions and calculate an average hourly rate
for the three test runs for each test condition.

* * * * *

7.  Section 63.1350 is amended revising paragraphs (g), (h) and (n) to
read as follows:

§63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

	(g) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to an emissions
limitation on D/F, THC or mercury emissions that employs carbon
injection as an emission control technique shall comply with the
monitoring requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) and (g)(1)
through (g)(6) of this section to demonstrate continuous compliance with
the D/F, THC or mercury emissions standard.

(1) Install, operate, calibrate and maintain a continuous monitor to
record the rate of activated carbon injection. The accuracy of the rate
measurement device must be ±1 percent of the rate being measured.

(2) Verify the calibration of the device at least once every three
months.

(3) The three-hour rolling average activated carbon injection rate shall
be calculated as the average of 180 successive one-minute average
activated carbon injection rates.

(4) Periods of time when one-minute averages are not available shall be
ignored when calculating three-hour rolling averages. When one-minute
averages become available, the first one-minute average is added to the
previous 179 values to calculate the three-hour rolling average.

(5) When the operating status of the raw mill of the in-line kiln/raw
mill is changed from off to on, or from on to off the calculation of the
three-hour rolling average activated carbon injection rate must begin
anew, without considering previous recordings.

(6) The owner or operator must install, operate, calibrate and maintain
a continuous monitor to record the activated carbon injection system
carrier gas parameter (either the carrier gas flow rate or the carrier
gas pressure drop) established during the mercury, THC or D/F
performance test in accordance with paragraphs (g)(6)(i) through
(g)(6)(iii) of this section.

(i) The owner or operator shall install, calibrate, operate and maintain
a device to continuously monitor and record the parameter value.

(ii) The owner or operator must calculate and record three-hour rolling
averages of the parameter value.

(iii) Periods of time when one-minute averages are not available shall
be ignored when calculating three-hour rolling averages. When one-minute
averages become available, the first one-minute average shall be added
to the previous 179 values to calculate the three-hour rolling average.

(h) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to a limitation
on THC emissions under this subpart shall comply with the monitoring
requirements of paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(3) of this section to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the THC emission standard:

(1) The owner or operator shall install, operate and maintain a THC
continuous emission monitoring system in accordance with Performance
Specification 8A, of appendix B to part 60 of this chapter and comply
with all of the requirements for continuous monitoring systems found in
the general provisions, subpart A of this part.

(2) The owner or operator is not required to calculate hourly rolling
averages in accordance with section 4.9 of Performance Specification 8A
if they are only complying with the 50 ppmv THC emissions limit.

(3) For facilities complying with the 50 ppmv THC emissions limit, any
thirty-day block average THC concentration in any gas discharged from a
greenfield raw material dryer, the main exhaust of a greenfield kiln, or
the main exhaust of a greenfield in-line kiln/raw mill, exceeding 50
ppmvd, reported as propane, corrected to seven percent oxygen, is a
violation of the standard.

(4) For new facilities complying with the 20 ppmv THC emissions limit,
any hourly average THC concentration in any gas discharged from a raw
material dryer, the main exhaust of a greenfield kiln, or the main
exhaust of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill, exceeding 20 ppmvd, reported
as propane, corrected to seven percent oxygen, is a violation of the
standard.

* * * * *

	(n) Any kiln or kiln/in-line raw mill using a control device (other
then ACI) to comply with a mercury emissions limit or equipment standard
will monitor the control device parameters as specificed in 40 CFR part
63 subpart SS.

* * * * *

	8.  Section 63.1351 is revised to read as follows:

§63.1351  Compliance Dates.

(a) Except as noted in paragraph (c) below, the compliance date for an
owner or operator of an existing affected source subject to the
provisions of this subpart is June 14, 2002.

(b) Except as noted in paragraph (d) below, the compliance date for an
owner or operator of an affected source subject to the provisions of
this subpart that commences new construction or reconstruction after
March 24, 1998 is June 14, 1999 or upon startup of operations, whichever
is later.

	(c)  The compliance date for an existing source to meet the
requirements of good combustion practices is [INSERT DATE ONE YEAR FROM
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

(d)  The compliance date for a new source to meet the THC emission limit
of 20 ppmv/98 percent reduction or the mercury standard of 41 µg/dscm
or application of a wet scrubber will be startup or [INSERT DATE THREE
YEARS FROM PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is later.

9.  Section 63.1355 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:

§63.1355  Recordkeeping Requirements.

* * * * *

(d)  You must keep annual records of the amount of CKD which is removed
from the kiln system and either disposed of as solid waste or otherwise
recycled for a beneficial use outside of the kiln system.

(e)	You must keep records of the amount of CKD recycled on an hourly
basis.

9.  Section 63.1356 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

§63.1356  Exemption from new source performance standards.

	(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section,
any affected source subject to the provisions of this subpart is exempt
from any otherwise applicable new source performance standard contained
in subpart F or subpart OOO of part 60 of this chapter.

(1)  Kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills, as applicable, under 40 CFR
60.60(b), located at area sources are subject to PM and opacity limits
and associated reporting and recordkeeping, under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart F.

	(2)  Greenfield raw material dryers, as applicable under 40 CFR
60.60(b), located at area sources, are subject to opacity limits and
associated reporting and recordkeeping under 40 CFR part 60, subpart F.

* * * * *

1 Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste are in a separate class of
source, since their emissions differ from portland cement kilns as a
result of the hazardous waste inputs.  Rules for hazardous waste-burning
cement kilns are found at subpart EEE of part 63.

 A new greenfield kiln is a kiln constructed after March 24, 1998 at a
site where there are no existing kilns.

 Indeed, most of the options EPA considered are really beyond-the-floor
alternatives, because they reflect practices that differ from those now
in use by any existing source (including the lowest emitters).  (Coal
switching, switching to natural gas, and raw material switching are
examples.)  In EPA’s view, a purported floor standard which forces
every source in a category to change its practices is a beyond-the-floor
standard.  Such a standard may not be adopted unless EPA takes into
account costs, energy, and nonair environmental impacts. 70 FR 72335.

 We discuss in section IV.A.1.c below floor determinations for cement
kilns using secondary materials (utility fly ash) as raw materials, in
place of primary materials.

 Limestone makes up approximately 75 percent of the mass input to the
kiln.  Typically the way a cement plant is sited is that a limestone
quarry suitable for cement production and that is expected to provide
many years of limestone is identified and the plant is built next to the
quarry.  There are cases where a cement plant may purchase small amounts
of limestone to blend with the limestone from its quarry.  However, this
close proximity of the quarry and cement plant is an inherent part of
the cement manufacturing process and, therefore, a cement plant does not
have the flexibility to obtain the bulk of its limestone from any other
source.  See 70 FR 72333.

 Post-Proposal review of available data on other mercury raw materials
indicates that other feed materials also contribute some mercury,
though, in most cases, less than limestone.  Other raw materials include
(but are not limited to): shale or clay to provide alumina; iron ore to
provide iron; and sand to provide silica.  These raw materials are used
in lesser amounts than limestone, and a cement plant may have some
flexibility in the sources of other raw materials.  As noted in the
preamble to the proposed amendments, there are cases where a facility
made changes to their raw materials (other then limestone) to reduce