[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35122-35136]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15718]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442. All
documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov
website. Although listed, some information is not publicly available,
e.g., confidential business information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Mr. Brian Storey, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
04), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address: [email protected]. For specific information regarding the
risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address: [email protected]. For
information about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular
entity, contact Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5 (E-
19J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

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

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

ACI activated carbon injection
CAA Clean Air Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CISWI commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrochloric acid
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
lb pounds
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
ng/dscm nanograms per dry standard cubic meters
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NEI National Emissions Inventory
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polyaromatic hydrocarbons
PM particulate matter
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry basis
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizers
RTR residual risk and technology review
SO2 sulfur dioxide
TEF toxicity equivalence factors
TEQ toxic equivalents
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology. Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S.C. United States Code

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

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

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

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

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

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

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

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

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

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

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

                             Table 2--Emission Limits for Kilns, Clinker Coolers, Raw Material Dryers, Raw and Finish Mills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     And the operating mode   And it is located at   Your emissions limits   And the units of the  The oxygen correction
     If your source is a (an):                 is:                     a:                     are:           emissions limit are:        factor is:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Existing kiln...................  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM \1\ 0.07..........  Pounds (lb)/ton        NA.
                                                                                clinker.
                                     ......................  ......................  D/F \2\ 0.2..........  Nanograms/dry          7 percent.
                                                                                standard cubic
                                                                                meters (ng/dscm)
                                                                                (TEQ).
                                     ......................  ......................  Mercury 55...........  lb/million (MM) tons   NA.
                                                                                clinker.
                                     ......................  ......................  THC 3 4 24...........  Parts per million,     7 percent.
                                                                                volumetric dry
                                                                                (ppmvd).
2. Existing kiln...................  Normal operation......  Major source..........  HCl 3................  ppmvd................  7 percent.
3. Existing kiln...................  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                standards
                                                                                (63.1346(g)).
4. New kiln........................  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM \1\ 0.02..........  lb/ton clinker.......  NA.
                                     ......................  ......................  D/F \2\ 0.2..........  ng/dscm (TEQ)........  7 percent.
                                     ......................  ......................  Mercury 21...........  lb/MM tons clinker...  NA.
                                     ......................  ......................  THC 3 4 24...........  ppmvd................  7 percent.
5. New kiln........................  Normal operation......  Major source..........  HCl 3................  ppmvd................  7 percent.
6. New kiln........................  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                standards
                                                                                (63.1346(g)).
7. Existing clinker cooler.........  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM 0.07..............  lb/ton clinker.......  NA.
8. Existing clinker cooler.........  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                standards
                                                                                (63.1348(b)(9)).
9. New clinker cooler..............  Normal operation......  Major or area source..  PM 0.02..............  lb/ton clinker.......  NA.
10. New clinker cooler.............  Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
                                                                                standards
                                                                                (63.1348(b)(9)).
11. Existing or new raw material     Normal operation......  Major or area source..  THC 3 4 24...........  ppmvd................  NA.
 dryer.
12. Existing or new raw material     Startup and shutdown..  Major or area source..  Work practice          NA...................  NA.
 dryer.                                                                               standards
                                                                                (63.1348(b)(9)).
13. Existing or new raw or finish    All operating modes...  Major source..........  Opacity 10...........  percent..............  NA.
 mill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The initial and subsequent PM performance tests are performed using Method 5 or 5I and consist of three test runs.
\2\ If the average temperature at the inlet to the first PM control device (fabric filter or electrostatic precipitator) during the D/F performance test
  is 400 degrees Fahrenheit or less, this limit is changed to 0.40 ng/dscm (TEQ).
\3\ Measured as propane.
\4\ Any source subject to the 24 ppmvd THC limit may elect to meet an alternative limit of 12 ppmvd for total organic HAP.

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

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

III. What is included in this final rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In the September 21, 2017, proposed rule, we proposed additional
revisions, which included changes to clarify monitoring, testing, and
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements and the correction of
typographical errors. Based on the comments received, we are now
finalizing the following amendments to the rule:
     We correct a paragraph in the reporting requirements that
mistakenly required that affected sources report their 30-operating day
rolling average for D/F temperature monitoring.
     We correct a provision that required facility owners or
operators to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln
feed rates.
     We clarify that the submittal dates for semiannual summary
reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 days after the end
of the reporting period.
     We resolve conflicting provisions that apply when a sulfur
dioxide (SO2) continuous parametric monitoring system is
used to monitor HCl compliance.
     We clarify that the requirement in 40 CFR
63.1349(b)(1)(vi) only applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
     We clarify that the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL D/F
standards were developed based on toxic equivalency factors (TEFs)
developed in 1989, as referenced in the TEQ definition section of the
rule (40 CFR 63.1341).
     We clarify that the performance test requirements for
affected sources that have been idle through one or more periods that
required a performance test to demonstrate compliance.
     We remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and Table 2 that contain
emission limits that were applicable prior to September 2015.
     We revise Equation 18 of the rule to include a missing
term in the equation.
     We revise 40 CFR 63.1350(g)(4) to say ``record'' instead
of ``report.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology
review and summarized the results of the review in the September 21,
2017, proposed rule (82 FR 44277). The results of the technology review
are briefly discussed below, and in more detail in the memorandum,
``Technology Review for the Portland Cement Production Source
Category,'' which is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0442-0189). The technology review focused on
identifying and evaluating developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
source category. We reviewed technologies currently available to
industry, and reviewed previous beyond-the-floor analyses, to determine
if there had been any developments in existing technologies, or whether
previous conclusions made by the EPA had changed. Additionally, we
reviewed new developments in control technologies and determined the
availability of each control, the costs associated with the
installation and annual maintenance associated with each control, and
the effectiveness of each technology in reducing HAP emissions. Based
on information available to the EPA, the technologies reviewed do not
provide sufficient reductions in HAP to support changing the standard
to reflect technological developments (82 FR 44277).
2. How did the technology review change for the Portland Cement
Manufacturing Industry source category?
    The technology review for the Portland Cement Manufacturing
Industry source category has not changed since proposal. As proposed,
the EPA is not making changes to the standards pursuant to CAA section
112(d)(6).
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    We received comments in support of the proposed determination that
no revisions to the standards are necessary under CAA section
112(d)(6).
    We also received comments opposing our proposed technology review
determination. Of the comments received, one commenter specifically
opposed the technology review determination, and suggested that the EPA
did not consider or recommend the use of selective catalytic reduction
technologies (SCR) as mercury control, to control D/F emissions, as THC
and volatile organic compound control, and as metallic HAP control.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's argument that EPA failed to
accurately assess SCR as a technology development capable of
controlling HAP emissions. SCR technology is used to control nitrogen
oxide (NOx) emissions from gas turbines, internal combustion engines,
and fossil fuel-fired utility boilers. The use of SCR by the Portland
Cement Manufacturing Industry source category is, however, problematic
for various reasons. For example, the chemical composition of raw
materials used to manufacture portland cement varies by location across
the United States. This variability in raw materials means that the
stack gas chemistry also varies across cement plants, often requiring
plant-specific controls for certain pollutants, such as NOx. The
presence of pyritic sulfur in raw materials and the resulting
SO2 emissions, for example, requires that higher
temperatures be maintained at the kiln to avoid the formation of
ammonium bisulfate salt, which can foul SCR catalysts. Additionally,
high dust levels and the nature of dusts typical of the portland cement
manufacturing process also creates difficulties not found in other
industries where SCR works well for NOx control. In the case of
mercury, SCR does not directly reduce mercury emissions. Instead, SCR
oxidizes mercury from its elemental form and the oxidized form can then
be more easily captured in scrubbers. However, since scrubbers are
uncommon in the cement industry, SCR would have little impact in
reducing mercury emissions from cement kilns, unless a scrubber was
also installed. Regarding D/F emissions control, the primary method of
D/F control at U.S. cement plants is temperature control, which is
already a requirement of the current subpart LLL standard. In general,
no information is available by facilities operating SCR in the U.S.
relevant to the effectiveness of an SCR for HAP control.
    Review of comments on our technology review did not change our
proposed determination under CAA section 112(d)(6), These comments and
our specific responses to those comments can be found in the comment
summary and response document titled, ``National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 63, subpart LLL) Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final
Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Proposed
Rules,'' which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, we
determined there were several technologies that have the potential for
reducing HAP emissions from cement kiln. However, as stated in the
proposed rule, most of these technologies have not been widely used in
the United States by the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, so
source category-specific data on their long-term performance and costs
are lacking (82 FR 44278). Since proposal, neither the technology
review nor our determination as a result of the technology review has
changed, and we are not revising 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, pursuant
to CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. Other Amendments to the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
NESHAP

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

to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln feed rates.
     We proposed to clarify that the submittal dates for
semiannual summary reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60
days after the end of the reporting period consistent with the Agency's
statement in the October 2016 rule guidance for 40 CFR part 63, subpart
LLL.
     We proposed to resolve conflicting provisions in 40 CFR
63.1349(b)(8)(x) and 40 CFR 63.1350(l)(3).
     We proposed to clarify the requirement in 40 CFR
63.1349(b)(1)(vi) to state that the provision of the section only
applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
     We proposed that the 1989 TEFs be incorporated into the
rule to clarify that they are the appropriate factors for calculating
TEQ.
     We proposed to clarify the performance test requirements
after extended shutdowns of existing kilns.
     We proposed to remove 40 CFR 63.1343(d) and Table 2 that
contain emission limits that were applicable prior to September 2015.
2. What key comments did we receive and what are our responses?
    Several commenters stated they generally supported the September
21, 2017, proposed rule, with several stating that the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, would improve monitoring,
compliance, and implementation of the rule.
    There were some comments that favored, and some that opposed the
EPA's proposal to allow facilities 180 days to demonstrate that a kiln
can comply with the standards when coming out of an extended idle
period (82 FR 44279). These comments are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
    One commenter in favor of the proposal requested that the EPA
clarify that units that were idled during the time when compliance was
required to be demonstrated, have 180 days after coming out of the idle
period to demonstrate compliance. To accomplish this, the commenter
recommended that EPA revise the language of proposed 40 CFR 63.1348(a)
to state: ``For an affected source subject to this subpart, you must
demonstrate compliance with the emissions standards and operating
limits by using the test methods and procedures in Sec. Sec.  63.1349
and 63.7. Any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance
before the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated
compliance but was idled during the normal window for the next
compliance test, must demonstrate compliance within 180 days after
coming out of the idle period.'' The EPA believes this request provides
additional clarification to the proposed rule amendment, and has
revised the rule text to incorporate the suggested change.
    In contrast, the EPA received comments opposed to our decision to
allow facilities 180 days to demonstrate that a kiln can comply with
the rule standards when coming out of an extended idle period. The
commenter took issue with the fact that the regulatory language does
not make clear whether the 180-day non-compliant period would be just a
6-month exemption or could be even longer, and requested a clear
trigger start or end-date, or sources could use this repeatedly after
any shutdown, simply by citing the new provision. Further, the
commenter noted that the proposed rule does not define the term ``due
to being idled,'' nor does it include language to limit the use of this
exemption. The commenter stated that the EPA's proposal would
contravene the CAA's requirement for ``enforceable'' emission limits,
and any cement plant that took advantage of the EPA's proposed 180-day
compliance exemption would violate its permit requirements. As stated
by the commenter, a facility that restarted operations after being
idled and then ran for 6 months without demonstrating compliance could
not possibly certify that it was ``in compliance'' with permit
requirements because it would not know if it was in compliance;
likewise, it could not ``promptly report any deviations'' because it
would not know if deviations occurred.
    The EPA's response regarding the commenter's concerns regarding the
180-day exemption is based, in part, on the decision made on March 16,
1994 (59 FR 12425), and promulgated in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2) to allow new
facilities 180 days to demonstrate initial compliance. The provisions
of 40 CFR 63.1348(a) are to allow previously idled kilns to reach a
steady-state condition and schedule and perform compliance testing, as
provided for new emission sources in 40 CFR 63.7(a)(2). It is
reasonable to expect that a kiln operating the same controls that
previously resulted in compliance would continue to be in compliance
when operating the same equipment in the same manner, and the 180-day
extension is simply a period during which they must complete the
process of demonstrating compliance. There is no change to the
facilities obligation to operate in compliance.
    Additionally, it is unreasonable to assume that portland cement
manufacturing facilities would cease operations of a kiln for a period
of time in order to circumvent compliance demonstration requirements.
It is our opinion that this would not be in the best economic interest
of the facility, by potentially limiting production, and profitability,
for the sake of circumventing a rule requirement for demonstrating
compliance.
    Lastly, we believe the recommended amendment to the proposed rule
suggested by the previous commenter would allow a specific time to
demonstrate compliance, and therefore, are revising the rule to state,
``Any affected source that was unable to demonstrate compliance before
the compliance date due to being idled, or that had demonstrated
compliance but was idled during the normal window for the next
compliance test, must demonstrate compliance within 180 days after
coming out of the idle period.''
    These comments and our specific responses to those comments can be
found in the comment summary and response document titled, ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Portland Cement
Manufacturing (40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL) Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Final Amendments: Summary of Public Comments and
Responses on Proposed Rules,'' which is available in the docket for
this action.
3. How did the requirements change since proposal?
    Based on the comments received, we are now finalizing the following
amendments to the rule:
     We correct a paragraph in the reporting requirements that
mistakenly required that affected sources report their 30-operating day
rolling average for D/F temperature monitoring, including a revision to
40 CFR 63.1350(g)(4) to say ``record'' instead of ``report.''
     We correct a provision that required facility owners or
operators to keep records of both daily clinker production and kiln
feed rates.
     We clarify that the submittal dates for semiannual summary
reports required under 40 CFR 63.1354(b)(9) are 60 days after the end
of the reporting period.
     We resolve conflicting provisions that apply when an
SO2 continuous parametric monitoring system is used to
monitor HCl compliance.
     We clarify the requirement in 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(vi)
only applies to kilns with inline raw mills.
     We clarify that the 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, D/F
standards were

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

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

A. What are the affected sources?

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

B. What are the air quality impacts?

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

C. What are the cost impacts?

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

D. What are the economic impacts?

    No economic impacts result from this final action.

E. What are the benefits?

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

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

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

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sec.  63.1341  Definitions.

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

Sec.  63.1343  [Amended]

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

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

Sec.  63.1348  Compliance requirements.

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

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

Sec.  63.1349  Performance testing requirements.

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

consecutive runs, including applicable sources as required by paragraph
(b)(1)(viii) of this section, to determine compliance. You need not
determine the particulate matter collected in the impingers ``back
half'' of the Method 5 or Method 5I particulate sampling train to
demonstrate compliance with the PM standards of this subpart. This
shall not preclude the permitting authority from requiring a
determination of the ``back half'' for other purposes. For kilns with
inline raw mills, testing must be conducted while the raw mill is on
and while the raw mill is off. If the exhaust streams of a kiln with an
inline raw mill and a clinker cooler are comingled, then the comingled
exhaust stream must be tested with the raw mill on and the raw mill
off.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) The run average temperature must be calculated for each run,
and the average of the run average temperatures must be determined and
included in the performance test report and will determine the
applicable temperature limit in accordance with Sec.  63.1346(b).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) If you are subject to limitations on THC emissions, you must
operate a CEMS in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.1350(i).
For the purposes of conducting the accuracy and quality assurance
evaluations for CEMS, the THC span value (as propane) is 50 to 60 ppmvw
and the reference method (RM) is Method 25A of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter.
* * * * *
    (6) * * *
    (i)(A) If the source is equipped with a wet scrubber, tray tower or
dry scrubber, you must conduct performance testing using Method 321 of
appendix A to this part unless you have installed a CEMS that meets the
requirements Sec.  63.1350(l)(1). For kilns with inline raw mills,
testing must be conducted for the raw mill on and raw mill off
conditions.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (viii) * * *
    (A) Determine the THC CEMS average values in ppmvw, and the average
of your corresponding three total organic HAP compliance test runs,
using Equation 12.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.102

Where:

x = The THC CEMS average values in ppmvw.
Xi = The THC CEMS data points for all three test runs i.
y = The organic HAP average values in ppmvw.
Yi = The organic HAP concentrations for all three test
runs i.
n = The number of data points.

* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (vi) If your kiln has an inline kiln/raw mill, you must conduct
separate performance tests while the raw mill is operating (``mill
on'') and while the raw mill is not operating (``mill off''). Using the
fraction of time the raw mill is on and the fraction of time that the
raw mill is off, calculate this limit as a weighted average of the
SO2 levels measured during raw mill on and raw mill off
compliance testing with Equation 17.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.103

Where:

R = Operating limit as SO2, ppmvw.
y = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill on operations,
ppmvw.
t = Percentage of operating time with mill on, expressed as a
decimal.
x = Average SO2 CEMS value during mill off operations,
ppmvw.
1-t = Percentage of operating time with mill off, expressed as a
decimal.

    (vii) * * *
    (B) Determine your SO2 CEMS instrument average ppm, and
the average of your corresponding three HCl compliance test runs, using
Equation 18.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25JY18.104

Where:

x = The SO2 CEMS average values in ppmvw.
X1 = The SO2 CEMS data points for the three
runs constituting the performance test.
y = The HCl average values in ppmvw.
Y1 = The HCl emission concentration expressed as ppmv
corrected to 7 percent oxygen for the three runs constituting the
performance test.
n = The number of data points.
* * * * *

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

Sec.  63.1350  Monitoring requirements.

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

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

    (iii) Quality assure any data above the span value established in
paragraph (k)(1) of this section using the following procedure. Any
time two consecutive 1-hour average measured concentrations of Hg
exceeds the span value you must, within 24 hours before or after,
introduce a higher, ``above span'' Hg reference gas standard to the Hg
CEMS. The ``above span'' reference gas must meet the requirements of PS
12A, Section 7.1, must target a concentration level between 50 and 150
percent of the highest expected hourly concentration measured during
the period of measurements above span, and must be introduced at the
probe. While this target represents a desired concentration range that
is not always achievable in practice, it is expected that the intent to
meet this range is demonstrated by the value of the reference gas.
Expected values may include ``above span'' calibrations done before or
after the above span measurement period. Record and report the results
of this procedure as you would for a daily calibration. The ``above
span'' calibration is successful if the value measured by the Hg CEMS
is within 20 percent of the certified value of the reference gas. If
the value measured by the Hg CEMS exceeds 20 percent of the certified
value of the reference gas, then you must normalize the one-hour
average stack gas values measured above the span during the 24-hour
period preceding or following the ``above span'' calibration for
reporting based on the Hg CEMS response to the reference gas as shown
in Equation 22. Only one ``above span'' calibration is needed per 24-
hour period.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (ii) On a continuous basis, determine the mass emissions of mercury
in lb/hr from the alkali bypass and coal mill exhausts by using the
mercury hourly emissions rate and the exhaust gas flow rate to
calculate hourly mercury emissions in lb/hr.
* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (1) If you monitor compliance with the HCl emissions limit by
operating an HCl CEMS, you must do so in accordance with Performance
Specification (PS) 15 or PS 18 of appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter, or, upon promulgation, in accordance with any other
performance specification for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter. You must operate, maintain, and quality assure a HCl CEMS
installed and certified under PS 15 according to the quality assurance
requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F to part 60 of this chapter
except that the Relative Accuracy Test Audit requirements of Procedure
1 must be replaced with the validation requirements and criteria of
sections 11.1.1 and 12.0 of PS 15. If you choose to install and operate
an HCl CEMS in accordance with PS 18, you must operate, maintain, and
quality assure the HCl CEMS using the associated Procedure 6 of
appendix F to part 60 of this chapter. For any performance
specification that you use, you must use Method 321 of appendix A to
this part as the reference test method for conducting relative accuracy
testing. The span value and calibration requirements in paragraphs
(l)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section apply to HCl CEMS other than those
installed and certified under PS 15 or PS 18.
* * * * *
    (3) If the source is equipped with a wet or dry scrubber or tray
tower, and you choose to monitor SO2 emissions, monitor
SO2 emissions continuously according to the requirements of
Sec.  60.63(e) and (f) of this chapter. If SO2 levels
increase above the 30-day rolling average SO2 operating
limit established during your performance test by 10 percent or more,
you must:
    (i) As soon as possible but no later than 30 days after you exceed
the established SO2 value conduct an inspection and take
corrective action to return the SO2 emissions to within the
operating limit; and
    (ii) Within 90 days of the exceedance or at the time of the next
compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions
compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl

emissions limit and to verify or re-establish the SO2 CEMS
operating limit.
* * * * *

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

Sec.  63.1354  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) The owner or operator shall submit a summary report
semiannually within 60 days of the reporting period to the EPA via the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). You must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI
for this subpart. Instead of using the electronic report in CEDRI for
this subpart, you may submit an alternate electronic file consistent
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI
website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri), once the XML
schema is available. If the reporting form specific to this subpart is
not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must
submit the report the Administrator at the appropriate address listed
in Sec.  63.13. You must begin submitting reports via CEDRI no later
than 90 days after the form becomes available in CEDRI. The excess
emissions and summary reports must be submitted no later than 60 days
after the end of the reporting period, regardless of the method in
which the reports are submitted. The report must contain the
information specified in Sec.  63.10(e)(3)(vi). In addition, the
summary report shall include:
* * * * *
    (vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS, SO2 CEMS,
or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the
reporting periods, you must report all of the calculated 30-operating
day rolling average values derived from the CPMS, CEMS, CMS, or Hg
sorbent trap monitoring systems.
* * * * *
    (10) If the total continuous monitoring system downtime for any CEM
or any CMS for the reporting period is 10 percent or greater of the
total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator
shall submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system
performance report along with the summary report.
    (11)(i) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs
(b)(11)(i)(A) and (B) of this section no later than 60 days following
the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by a
responsible official.
    (A) The initial performance test data as recorded under Sec.
63.1349(a).
    (B) The values for the site-specific operating limits or parameters
established pursuant to Sec.  63.1349(b)(1), (3), (6), (7), and (8), as
applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how
the operating parameters were established during the initial
performance test.
    (C) As of December 31, 2011, and within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in Sec.
63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and
performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully
submitting the data electronically via CEDRI and by using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert). For any
performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on
the ERT website, you must submit the results of the performance
evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in
Sec.  63.13.
* * * * *
    (12) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of
this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate
address listed in Sec.  63.13. The Administrator or the delegated
authority may request a report in any form suitable for the specific
case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel
spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right
to require submittal of reports subject to paragraphs (b)(9)
introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of this section in paper format.
    (c) For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused
by a malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in
the semi-annual compliance report required by Sec.  63.1354(b)(9). The
report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each
event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number
of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event
the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the amount of each
regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the
source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used
to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description
of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an
affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.
63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.

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

Sec.  63.1355  Recordkeeping requirements.

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

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

                     Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Citation                       Requirement          Applies to subpart LLL        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
63.10(e)(3)(v).....................  Due Dates for Excess         ......................  Sec.   63.1354(b)(9)
                                      Emissions and No CMS                                 specifies due date.
                                      Performance Reports.
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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