model was revised based on peer review comments and comments on the
proposed rule and was used to develop cost and economic impacts of the
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Industrial Sector Integrated Solutions Model and Review
of ISIS Documentation Packages dated August, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a Technical Memo to the docket, we provide a comparison of these
models to provide an evaluation of how the differences between the
models may impact the resulting estimates of the impacts of the
regulation. For example, the Engineering Analysis and Economic Impact
Analysis evaluate a snapshot of implementation of the final rule in a
given year (i.e., 2013, based on 2005 dollars) while ISIS evaluates
impacts of compliance dynamically over time (i.e., 2005-2013). In
general, given the optimization nature of ISIS, ISIS accounts for more
flexibility when estimating the impacts of the regulation. For example,
when optimizing to meet an emission limit, ISIS allows for the addition
of new kilns, as well as kiln retirements, replacements, expansions and
the installation of controls. In the Engineering Analysis the existing
kiln population is assumed to be constant even though normal kiln
retirements occur. Based on these differences, the total control costs
from the Engineering Analysis are higher than the total control cost
estimated in ISIS.
    We have not yet developed ISIS modules to calculate non-air
environmental impacts and energy impacts. Therefore, these sections
only contain impacts calculated by the traditional engineering methods.
    In addition, we have not yet developed ISIS modules to calculate
non-air environmental impacts and energy impacts. Therefore, these
sections only contain impacts calculated by the traditional engineering
methods.
3. What are the air quality impacts?
    For the Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS, we estimated the emission
reductions that will occur due to the implementation of the final
emission limits. EPA estimated emission reductions based on both the
control technologies selected by the engineering analysis and the ISIS
model. These emission reductions are based on the estimated kiln
population in 2013.
    Under the final limit for mercury, we have estimated that the
emissions reductions will be 14,700 lb/yr for kilns subject to the
exiting source emissions limits. For kilns subject to new source
emissions limits, the emissions reductions will be 1,900 lb/year in
2013.
    Under the final limits for THC, we have estimated that the
emissions reductions will be 9,800 tpy for kilns subject to existing
source limits, which represents an organic HAP reduction of 3,400 tpy.
For kilns subject to new source limits, THC emissions will be reduced
by 720 tpy. This represents an organic HAP reduction of 250 tpy.
    Under the final limit for HCl, we have estimated that emissions
will be reduced by 4,700 tpy for kilns subject to exiting source limits
and 1,100 tpy for kiln subject to new source limits.
    The final emission limits for PM represent a lowering of the PM
limit from 0.5 lb/ton of clinker to .04 lb/ton of clinker for existing
kilns and for new kilns, a lowering to 0.01 lb/ton of clinker. These
new limits are based on 30-day rolling averages measured with a CEM. We
have estimated that PM emissions will be reduced by 9,500 tpy for kilns
subject to the existing source limits and 2,000 tpy for kilns subject
to the new source limit. These estimates include only direct PM
reductions, and do not include secondary PM reductions that occur as a
result of concurrent control of SO2 discussed below. The PM
emission reductions that occur as a result of the final NSPS limits are
included in the totals shown above since the final NSPS PM limit is
equal to the new source NESHAP limit.
    The control strategies likely adopted to meet the final standards
for mercury, THC and HCl will also result in concurrent control of
SO2 emissions. For kilns that use an RTO to comply with the
THC emissions limit, it is necessary to install an alkaline scrubber
upstream of the RTO to control acid gas and to provide additional
control of PM

and to avoid plugging and fouling of the RTO. Scrubbers will also be
used to control HCl and mercury emissions. Reductions in SO2
emissions associated with controls for mercury, THC and HCl are
estimated at 230 tpy, 11,200 tpy, and 98,400 tpy, respectively, so that
total reduction in SO2 emissions from existing kilns will be
an estimated 95,500 tpy. The SO2 emission reduction totals
also include the reduction that will result from the final NSPS limit
for SO2. If we were to break out the NSPS SO2
reduction separately, a new 1.2 million tpy kiln equipped with a
scrubber will reduce SO2 emissions by 190 tpy on average or
about 14,300 tpy in 2013.
    These controls will also reduce ambient concentrations of secondary
PM2.5 as well. This is PM that results from atmospheric
transformation processes of precursor gases, including SO2.
Note that the PM emission reductions above do not reflect reductions in
secondary PM formation. For these rules, the reduction in secondary PM
formation represents a large fraction of the total reduction in ambient
levels of PM, which is discussed in the benefits section of the
preamble below. However, with the data available, we are unable to
estimate the fraction of ambient PM reduction resulting specifically
from the reduction in SO2 emissions.
    Under the final limit for NOX, we estimated that the
emission reduction for a 1.2 million tpy model kiln will be 600 tpy.
The nationwide emissions reduction 5 years after promulgation of the
final standards was estimated at 6,600 tpy.
    In addition to this traditional estimation of emission reductions,
EPA employed the ISIS model to estimate emission reductions from the
NESHAP and NSPS. The estimation of emission reductions in the ISIS
model accounts for the optimization of the industry and includes the
addition of new kilns, kiln retirements, replacements, and expansions
as well as installation of controls. Using the ISIS model, in 2013 we
estimate reductions of 12,627 lbs of mercury, 10,809 tons of THC, 4,307
tons of HCl, 5,729 tons of PM (does not include reductions in secondary
PM), and 80,245 tons of SO2, and 14,159 tons of
NOX compared to emissions that would occur in 2013 in the
absence of the NESHAP and NSPS. As noted, the ISIS model estimates
lower SO2 reductions because the model optimizes kiln
retirements, replacements, and expansions as well as installation of
controls. We did not determine ambient PM benefits based on the ISIS
model's predicted emission reductions. However, even with this lower
SO2 reduction estimate, the secondary PM impacts would
likely constitute a majority of the total ambient PM impacts. More
information on the ISIS Model and results can be found in the ISIS TSD
and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
    Under the final standards, new monitoring requirements are being
added. Particulate matter CEMS are being required on kilns and clinker
coolers. For cement kilns, CEMS are required for measurement of THC,
NOX and SO2. For kilns that do not have wet
scrubbers, CEMS are required to monitor HCl emissions. Continuous
emission measurement (CEMS or sorbent traps) are required for
measurement of mercury emissions. There is insufficient data to
quantify the emissions reduction that will result from these
requirements. However, emissions reductions will occur as a result of
the availability of continuous information on kiln and control device
performance and a reduction in the length of time that operations are
outside of acceptable conditions. Also, periods of excursions from
acceptable conditions will be identified more quickly with continuous
monitoring than with less frequent approaches, thus reducing the
duration of such excursions.
4. What are the water quality impacts?
    We estimated no water quality impacts for the proposed amendments.
The requirements that might result in the use of alkaline scrubbers
will produce a scrubber slurry liquid waste stream. However, we assume
the scrubber slurry produced will be dewatered and added back into the
cement-making process as gypsum. Water from the dewatering process will
be recycled back to the scrubber. The four facilities (five kilns) that
currently use wet scrubbers in this industry report no water releases
at any time.\46\ We requested comment in the Portland Cement NEHSAP
proposal on the potential for water releases due to wet scrubber system
purges and any regulations that might apply. Though commenters raised
concerns of the possibility of water impacts, they did not provide a
rationale of why it would be expected when it is not occurring at the
four facilities that currently use wet scrubbers, due to their on-site
reuse of water. If discharges did occur, there would be a potential for
water quality issues. But given these facts, we believe our estimate of
no water quality impacts resulting from production of waste water by
wet scrubbers is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Summary of Responses to Requests for Water Impacts
Information. August 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The addition of scrubbers will increase water usage by about 4,200
million gallons per year. For a new 1.2 million tpy kiln, water usage
will be 72 million gallons per year or 630 million gallons by 2013 for
all kilns subject to new source limits for HCl and NSPS limits.
    We did receive comments that in some areas there is not sufficient
water available to support this increase in water use. We do not have
sufficient data to perform an analysis of this situation, but we note
that other less water intensive controls (dry injection of various
sorbents, spray dryers) are available for control of HCl. This is
further discussed in the cost impacts section.
5. What are the solid waste impacts?
    The potential for solid waste impacts are associated with greater
PM control for kilns, waste generated by ACI systems and solids
resulting from solids in scrubber slurry water. As explained above, we
have assumed little or no solid waste is expected from the generation
of scrubber slurry because the solids from the slurry are used in the
finish mill as a raw material. All of the facilities currently using
wet scrubber use mix the gypsum created in the scrubber with clinker in
the finish mill. A commenter noted that the synthetic gypsum can be
difficult to dewater, but currently operating facilities seem to have
solved this issue. Another commenter notes that facilities with low
SO2 levels may produce such small amounts of gypsum.
Theoretically, this could result in a situation where it is impractical
to dewater the gypsum, and it must be land filled. However, we
anticipate that the total amounts of waste will not be significant and
the cost impact (compared to the total scrubber costs) will be minimal.
    The PM captured in the kiln fabric filter (cement kiln dust) is
essentially recaptured raw material, intermediate materials, or
product. Based on the available information, it appears that most
captured PM is typically recycled back to the kilns to the maximum
extent possible. Therefore we estimate that any additional PM captured
will also be recycled to the kiln to the extent possible.
    Where equipped with an alkali bypass, the bypass will have a
separate PM control device and that PM is typically disposed of as
solid waste. An alkali bypass is not utilized on all kilns. Where one
is present, the amount of solid waste generated from the alkali bypass
is minimal, usually about 1

percent of total CKD in control devices, because the bypass gas stream
is a small percentage of total kiln exhaust gas flow and the bypass gas
stream does not contact the feed stream in the raw mill.
    Waste collected in the polishing baghouse associated with ACI that
might be added for mercury or THC control cannot be recycled to the
kiln and will be disposed of as solid waste. An estimated 122,000 tpy
of solid waste will be generated from the use of ACI systems on
existing kilns. A typical new kiln subject to new source mercury
standards equipped with an ACI system will be expected to generate
1,800 tons of solid waste per kiln or, assuming all 16 of the kilns
subject to new source standards will add ACI systems, about 35,000 tpy
in the year 2013.
    In addition to the solid waste impacts described above, there is a
potential for an increase in solid waste generation if a facility
elects to control its mercury emissions by increasing the amount of CKD
wasted rather than returned to process. This will be a site-specific
decision, and we have no data to estimate the potential solid waste
that may be generated by this practice. However, we expect the total
amount to be small for two reasons. First, wasting cement kiln dust for
mercury control represents a significant expense to a facility because
it will be essentially wasting either raw materials or product. We
anticipate this option will not be used if the amount of CKD wasted
will be large. Second, we believe that cement manufacturers will add
the additional CKD to the finish mill to the maximum extent possible
rather than waste the material.
6. What are the secondary impacts?
    Indirect or secondary air quality impacts include impacts that will
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices as well as water quality and solid waste
impacts (which were just discussed) that will occur as a result of
these final revisions. We estimate these final revisions will increase
emissions of criteria pollutants from utility boilers that supply
electricity to the Portland cement facilities. We estimate increased
energy demand associated with the installation of scrubbers, ACI
systems, and RTO. The increases for kilns subject to existing source
standards are estimated to be 1,700 tpy of NOX, 900 tpy of
CO, 3,000 tpy of SO2 and about 90 tpy of PM. For kilns
subject to new source standards, increases in secondary air pollutants
are estimated to be 440 tpy of NOX, 230 tpy of CO, 760 tpy
of SO2 and 20 tpy of PM. We also estimated increases of
CO2 to be 0.9 million tpy for kilns subject to existing
source standards and 209,000 tpy for kilns subject to new source
standards.
    The increase in electricity usage for the pumps used in the SNCR
system to deliver reagent to the kiln are negligible.
7. What are the energy impacts?
    The addition of alkaline scrubbers, ACI systems, and RTO added to
comply with the final amendments will result in increased energy use
due to the electrical requirements for the scrubber and ACI systems and
increased fan pressure drops, and natural gas to fuel the RTO. We
estimate the additional national electrical demand to be 800 million
kWhr per year and the natural gas use to be 1.2 million MMBtu per year
for kilns subject to existing source standards. For kilns subject to
new source standards, the electrical demand is estimated to be 199
million kWhr per year.
8. What are the cost impacts?
    Under the final amendments, existing kilns are expected to add one
or more control devices to comply with the final emission limits. In
addition, kiln and clinker coolers will be required to install varying
numbers of CEMS or continuous emissions monitors. We performed two
separate cost analyses for this final rule. In the engineering cost
analysis, we estimated the cost of the final amendments based on the
type of control device that was assumed to be necessary to comply with
the final emission standards. Based on baseline emissions of mercury,
THC, HCl and PM for each kiln and the removal efficiency necessary to
comply with the final emission limit for each HAP, an appropriate
control device was identified. In assigning control devices to each
kiln where more than one control device will be capable of reducing
emissions of a particular HAP below the limit, we assumed that the
least costly control will be installed. For example, if a kiln could
use either a scrubber or ACI to comply with the final limit for
mercury, it was assumed that ACI will be selected over a scrubber
because an ACI system will be less costly. ACI also is expected to
achieve a higher removal efficiency than a scrubber for mercury (90
percent versus 80 percent). In some instances, a more expensive
technology was considered appropriate because the selected control
reduced emissions of multiple pollutants. For example, even though ACI
will be less costly than a scrubber for controlling mercury, if the
kiln also had to reduce HCl (and, for new kilns subject to the NSPS
amendments SO2) emissions, we assumed that a scrubber will
be applied to control HCl as well as mercury because ACI will not
control HCl. However, for many kilns, our analysis assumes that
multiple controls will have to be added because more than one control
will be needed to control all HAP. For example, ACI may be considered
necessary to meet the limits for THC/organic HAP and/or mercury. For
the same kiln, a scrubber will also be required to reduce HCl
emissions. In this case we allocate the cost of the control to
controlling mercury emissions, not to the cost of controlling HCl
emissions. In addition, once we assigned a particular control device,
in most cases we assumed mercury, HCl and THC/organic HAP emissions
reductions will equal the control device efficiency, and not the
minimum reduction necessary to meet the emissions limit. We believe
this assumption is warranted because it matches costs with actual
emissions reductions. In the case of PM, we assumed the controlled
facility will emit at the average level necessary to meet the standard
(i.e., we assumed for PM that the controlled facility will emit at 0.01
lb/ton clinker, the average emission level, not 0.04 lb/ton clinker,
the actual emissions limit), because the final emissions levels are
extremely low.
    As previously discussed, in the case of the two facilities that
require mercury emission reduction of 98 percent or more, we estimated
the cost impacts by costing the two mercury control for which we have
cost data, ACI and wet scrubbers. We believe this estimate is a
conservative estimate of the costs these facilities will ultimately
incur to meet the mercury emissions limit, based on the fact that they
may be able to meet the limit using dust shuttling and/or treatment of
cement kiln dust, which, based on the limited amount and size of
equipment required, is expected to have lower costs than wet scrubbing.
    In a separate analysis performed using the ISIS model, we input
into ISIS the baseline and controlled emissions rates for each
pollutant, along with the maximum percent reduction achievable for a
particular control technology, and allowed ISIS to base the control
required on optimizing total production costs. In addition, the ISIS
model accounts for normal kiln retirements that will occur even in the
absence of any regulatory action (i.e., as new kilns come on-line,
older, less efficient and more costly to operate kilns are retired). In
the first cost analysis, total national annual costs assume that all
kilns currently operating continue to operate while 20 new kilns come
on-line. In the ISIS model, the two highest mercury emitting kilns
requiring a 98+ percent

mercury control are assumed to shut down in 2013 because no single
mercury control applied to these kilns can meet a 98+ percent mercury
reduction.
    Table 11 presents the resulting add-on controls each approach
estimated was necessary to meet the final emissions limits.

                                                        Table 11--Control Installation Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      LWS      ACI       LWS + ACI       MB       FF       WS + RTO       RTO      SNCR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering Analysis..............................................      115      151               2       28        0              10        0        7
ISIS Model........................................................       30       42              29        6        2               6       15        7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the engineering analysis, we estimated the total capital cost of
installing alkaline scrubbers and ACI systems for mercury control,
including monitoring systems, will be $339 million with an annualized
cost of $113 million. Most of the ACI systems installed for mercury
control will also control organic HAP and THC. Where ACI does not
provide sufficient control of organic HAP and THC, RTO/wet scrubbers
are used. The estimated capital cost of installing RTO/wet scrubbers to
reduce THC emissions will be $253 million with annualized cost of $49
million. The capital cost of adding scrubbers for the control of HCl is
estimated to be $1,882 million with an annualized cost of $261 million.
The capital cost of adding membrane bags to existing fabric will be $57
million with annualized cost of $16 million. The total capital cost for
the final amendments for kilns subject to existing source emissions
limits will be an estimated $2.2 billion with an annualized cost of
$377 million.
    The estimated emission control capital cost per new 1.2 million tpy
kiln is $3.2 million and the annualized costs are estimated at $1.2
million for mercury and THC/organic HAP control, and $3.6 million for
HCl control. Because the new kiln will be equipped with a baghouse even
in the absence of the rule and because the ACI system, which includes a
polishing baghouse, will be installed for mercury and organic HAP
control, there will be no additional cost for PM control. Under the
NSPS, 7 new kilns will install SNCR to control NOX and add
NOX CEMS at a capital cost of $19.6 million and an
annualized cost of $10.9 million. The control of SO2 under
the NSPS will be accomplished by wet scrubbers installed for HCl
control under the NESHAP so that no control costs are attributable to
the NSPS. There will be SO2 monitoring cost estimated at
$1.1 million capital cost and $0.3 million annualized cost for the 7
new kilns subject to the NSPS. Flow monitoring devices are needed in
conjunction with CEMS for NOX and SO2. Capital
costs for flow monitoring devices will be $0.25 million capital and
$0.1 million annualized costs. National annualized cost by the end of
the fifth year for all new kilns will be an estimated $80.6 million.
    In the ISIS results, we are not able to separate costs by pollutant
because the model provides an overall optimization of the production
and air pollution control costs. The total annual costs of the ISIS
model for the NESHAP and NSPS are $350 million in 2013. This estimate
is significantly lower than the total costs estimated by traditional
methods.
    It should be noted that for cases where more than a 50 percent
reduction in HCl was required, we costed a wet scrubber. We note that
some commenters have stated that some new and existing facilities may
be located in areas where there is not sufficient water to operate a
wet scrubber. However, in this rule we are not mandating wet scrubber
control technology. Other control techniques are available (hydrated
finely ground lime, spray dryers, fuel and additive switching) that we
believe would allow a cement kiln to meet the HCl emission limits in
areas where sufficient water for a wet scrubber is not available.
However, we do not have data available on costs for these alternatives
controls or techniques, some of which would be site specific. We would
anticipate that costs of these techniques would be no more expensive
that a wet scrubber. Therefore we believe that by costing wet scrubber
technology in these situations we have not underestimated costs.
9. What are the economic impacts?
    EPA employed both a partial-equilibrium economic model and the ISIS
model to analyze the impact on the industry and the economy.
    The Economic Impact Analysis model estimates the average national
price for Portland cement could be 5.4 percent higher with the NESHAP
and NSPS, or $4.50 per metric ton, while annual domestic production may
fall by 11 percent, or 10 million tons per year. Because of higher
domestic prices, imports are expected to rise by 3 million metric tons
per year. Operating profits fall by $241 million.
    Precise job effect estimates cannot be estimated with certainty.
Ideally, whenever a regulatory change results in a reallocation of
labor or other factors of production in an economy, a general
equilibrium approach should be applied to estimate the attendant
economic impacts. Unfortunately, time and resource constraints
prevented the creation of a model with the spatial and sectoral
resolution necessary to analyze the final rule. However, Morgenstern et
al. (2002) provides a theoretical framework which allows us to
approximate some of the relevant general equilibrium effects by
identifying three economic mechanisms by which pollution abatement
activities can indirectly influence: Higher production costs raise
market prices, higher prices reduce consumption, and employment within
an industry falls (``demand effect''); pollution abatement activities
require additional labor services to produce the same level of output
(``cost effect''); and post-regulation production technologies may be
more or less labor intensive (i.e., more/less labor is required per
dollar of output) (``factor-shift effect'').
    Several empirical studies, including Morgenstern et al. (2002),
suggest the net employment decline is zero or economically small (e.g.,
Cole and Elliot, 2007; Berman and Bui, 2001). However, others show the
question has not been resolved in the literature (Henderson, 1996;
Greenstone, 2002). Morgenstern et al. use a 6-year panel (U.S. Census
data for plant-level prices, inputs [(including labor], outputs, and
environmental expenditures) to econometrically estimate the production
technologies and industry-level demand elasticities. Their
identification strategy leverages repeat plant-level observations over
time and uses plant-level and year fixed effects (e.g., dummy variables
for plant and years). After estimating their model, Morgenstern show
and compute the change in employment associated with an additional $1
million ($1987) in environmental spending. Their estimates cover four
manufacturing

industries (pulp and paper, plastics, petroleum, and steel) and
Morgenstern et al. present results separately for the cost, factor
shift, and demand effects, as well as the net effect. They also
estimate and report an industry-wide average parameter that combines
the four industry-wide estimates and weight them by each industry's
share of environmental expenditures.
    Historically, EPA has most often estimated employment changes
associated with plant closures due to environmental regulation or
changes in output for the regulated industry (EPA, 1999a; EPA, 2000).
This partial equilibrium approach focuses only on the ``demand''
portion of the projected change in employment and neglects other
employment changes. EPA provides this estimate because it employs the
most detailed modeling for the industry being regulated even if it does
not capture all types of employment impacts. In addition to the
employment effects identified by Morgenstern et al., we also expect
that the substitutes for cement (e.g., asphalt) would expand production
as consumers shift away from cement to other products. This would also
lead to increased employment in those industries. Focusing only on the
``demand effect'', it can be seen that the estimate from the historical
approach is within the range presented by the Morgenstern ``demand
effect'' portion. This strengthens our comfort in the reasonableness of
both estimates. In April of this year, EPA started including an
estimate based on the Morgenstern approach because it is thought to be
a broader measure of the employment impacts of this type of
environmental regulation. Thus, this analysis goes beyond what EPA has
typically done because the parameters estimated in the Morgenstern
paper were used to estimate all three effects (``demand,'' ``cost,''
and ``factor shift''). This transfer of results from the Morgenstern
study is uncertain but avoids ignoring the ``cost effect'' and the
``factor-shift effect.''
    Using the historical approach, we calculated ``demand effect''
employment changes by assuming that the number of jobs declines
proportionally with the economic model's simulated output changes. As
shown in Table 3-10, using this limited approach, the employment falls
by an 1,500 jobs, or approximately -10 percent.\47\ By comparison,
using the Morgenstern approach, we estimate that the net employment
effects could range between 600 job losses to 1,300 job gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ To place this reduction in context, it is similar to the
decline experienced during the latest economic downturn;
approximately 2,000 jobs (see Appendix A, Table A-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has solely used this historical estimate in the past as a
measure of the projected employment change associated with a
regulation. However there are a number of serious shortcomings with
this approach. First, and foremost, the historical approach only looks
at the employment effects on the regulated industry from reduced
output. Second, to arrive at that estimate, EPA needed to string
together a number of strong assumptions. The employment impacts are
independent of the performance of the overall economy. This rule takes
effect in three years. If the economy is strong, the demand for cement
strong, it is unlikely that any contraction in the industry will take
place, even with the regulation. Second, we assume that all plants have
the same limited ability to pass on the higher costs. In reality,
plants should be modeled as oligopolists for each of their regional
markets. Finally, EPA assumed that employment is directly proportional
to output. This is unlikely, and biases the results towards higher
employment losses. The Morgenstern methodology is a more complete
consideration of probable impacts of a regulation on the economy.

        Table 12--Job Losses/Gains Associated With the Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Method                             1,000 Jobs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial equilibrium model (demand        -1.5
 effect only).
Literature-based estimate (net effect    0.3
 [A + B + C below]).                     (-0.6 to +1.3).
    A. Literature-based estimate:        -0.8
     Demand effect.                      (-1.7 to +0.1).
    B. Literature-based estimate: Cost   0.5
     effect.                             (+0.2 to +0.9).
    C. Literature-based estimate:        0.6
     Factor shift effect.                (+0 to +1.2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We calculated a similar ``demand effect'' estimate that used the
Morgenstern paper. EPA selected this paper because the parameter
estimates (expressed in jobs per million [$1987] of environmental
compliance expenditures) provide a transparent and tractable way to
transfer estimates for an employment effects analysis. Similar
estimates were not available from other studies. To do this, we
multiplied the point estimate for the total demand effect (-3.56 jobs
per million [$1987] of environmental compliance expenditure) by the
total environmental compliance expenditures used in the partial
equilibrium model. For example, the jobs effect estimate for is
estimated to be 807 jobs (-3.56 x $378 million x 0.6).\48\ Demand
effect results are provided in Table 12. It is not appropriate to
substitute the data from that approach in to the Morgenstern due to the
incompatibilities of the underlying data. Since the result from the
historical approach is within the confidence bounds for the Morgenstern
results for the ``demand effect'', we are comfortable that the more
general Morgenstern result is a good representation of the change in
employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Since Morgenstern's analysis reports environmental
expenditures in 1987 dollars, we make an inflation adjustment to the
engineering cost analysis using the consumer price index ((195.3/
113.6) = 0.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also present the results of using the Morgenstern paper to
estimate employment ``cost'' and ``factor-shift'' effects. Although
using the Morgenstern parameters to estimate these ``cost'' and
``factor-shift'' employment changes is uncertain, it is helpful to
compare the potential job gains from these effects to the job losses
associated with the ``demand'' effect. Table 12 shows that using the
``cost'' and ``factor shift'' employment effects may offset employment
loss estimates using either ``demand'' effect employment losses. The 95
percent confidence intervals are shown for all of the estimates based
on

the Morgenstern parameters. As shown, at the 95 percent confidence
level, we cannot be certain if net employment changes are positive or
negative.
    Although the Morgenstern paper provides additional information
about the potential job effects of environmental protection programs,
there are several qualifications EPA considered as part of the
analysis. First, EPA has used the weighted average parameter estimates
for a narrow set of manufacturing industries (pulp and paper, plastics,
petroleum, and steel). Absent other data and estimates, this approach
seems reasonable and the estimates come from a respected peer-reviewed
source. However, EPA acknowledges the final rule covers an industry not
considered in the original empirical study. By transferring the
estimates to the cement sector, we make the assumption that estimates
are similar in size. In addition, EPA assumes also that Morgenstern et
al.'s estimates derived from the 1979-1991 are still applicable for
policy taking place in 2013, almost 20 years later. Second, the
economic impact model only considers near-term employment effects in
the cement industry where production technologies are fixed. As a
result, the economic impact model places more emphasis on the short-
term ``demand effect,'' whereas the Morgenstern paper emphasizes other
important long-term responses. For example, positive job gains
associated with ``factor shift effects'' are more plausible when
production choices become more flexible over time and industries can
substitute labor for other production inputs. Third, the Morgenstern
paper estimates rely on sector demand elasticities that are different
(typically bigger) from the demand elasticity parameter used in the
cement model. As a result, the demand effects are not directly
comparable with the demand effects estimated by the cement model.
Fourth, Morgenstern identifies the industry average as economically and
statistically insignificant effect (i.e., the point estimates are
small, measured imprecisely, and not distinguishable from zero). EPA
acknowledges this fact and has reported the 95 percent confidence
intervals in Table 12. Fifth, Morgenstern's methodology assumes large
plants bear most of the regulatory costs. By transferring the
estimates, EPA assumes a similar distribution of regulatory costs by
plant size and that the regulatory burden does not disproportionately
fall on smaller plants.
    EPA identified ten domestic plants with significant utilization
changes that could temporarily idle until market demand conditions
improve. It should be noted that some of these plant may be idled even
in the absence of this action based on a review of recent history of
this industry. The plants are small capacity plants with unit
compliance costs close to $8 per ton and $241 million total change in
operating profits. Since these plants account for approximately 8
percent of domestic capacity, a decision to permanently shut down these
plants will reduce domestic supply and lead to additional projected
market price increases. If any plants closed or idled there would also
be a savings from not having to incur pollution control costs. A rough
estimate of the change in social cost if all ten were to idle or close
is a reduction in social cost of $24 million.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In addition to the ten plants identified that could
temporarily idle or permanently shut down, there are two plants with
unusually high mercury emissions that cannot meet the mercury
emission limit using any single control system. However, we are
assuming that they will apply multiple controls to meet the limit
and have accounted for multiple controls in our cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated domestic social cost of the final amendments is $926
to $950 million. There is an estimated $121 million surplus gain for
other countries producing cement. The social cost estimates are
significantly higher than the engineering analysis estimates, which
estimated annualized costs of $466 million. This is a direct
consequence of EPA's assumptions about existing domestic plants'
pricing behavior. Under baseline conditions without regulation, the
existing domestic cement plants are assumed to choose a production
level that is less than the level produced under perfect competition.
The imposition of additional regulatory costs tends to widen the gap
between price and marginal cost in these markets and contributes to
additional social costs. For more detail see the Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA).
    Using the ISIS model, we estimated 12 kilns (9 million tons of
capacity) may be idled as a result of this final rulemaking. ISIS
estimates a range of 1,105-1,134 jobs lost associated with the capacity
idling. In ISIS, kilns are modeled producing at their capacity levels
after taking into consideration normal downtime days. If the kilns
owners decide to operate the kilns at a lower utilization rate a lower
the number of kilns idling is expected to be lower.
    As a result of this action, ISIS projects cement industry revenues
are projected to decline by 4.5 percent, or $421 million. We estimate
cement demand to drop 5.7 percent in 2013 or 7.0 million tons as a
result of this action. The drop in demand will affect the domestic
production and imports. Domestic production may fall by 9.6 percent or
9.0 million tons in 2013 compared to the baseline. Imports are likely
to rise by 2.0 million tons. ISIS estimates that the average national
price for Portland cement in 2013 could be 6.8 percent higher, or $5.79
per metric ton. More information on this model can be found in the ISIS
TSD and in a Technical Memo to the docket.
10. What are the benefits?
    We estimated the monetized benefits of this final regulatory action
to be $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) in
the implementation year (2013). The monetized benefits of the final
regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $6.7 billion to $16
billion (2005$). Using alternate relationships between PM2.5
and premature mortality supplied by experts, higher and lower benefits
estimates are plausible, but most of the expert-based estimates fall
between these two estimates.\50\ A summary of the avoided health
benefits and the associated monetized benefits estimates at discount
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent are provided in Table 13 of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Roman et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

Table 13--Summary of the Avoided Health Incidences and Monetized PM2.5 Benefits Estimates for the Final Portland
                                             Cement NESHAP and NSPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Monetized benefits          Monetized benefits
                               Avoided health incidences    (millions of 2005$, 3%      (millions of 2005$, 7%
                                                                discount rate)              discount rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avoided Premature Mortality.  960 to 2,500..............  $7,600 to $19,000.........  $6,900 to $17,000.

Avoided Morbidity:
    Chronic Bronchitis......  650.......................  $19.......................  $19.
    Acute Myocardial          1,500.....................  $11.......................  $11.
     Infarction.
    Hospital Admissions,      240.......................  $0.2......................  $0.2.
     Respiratory.
    Hospital Admissions,      500.......................  $0.9......................  $0.9.
     Cardiovascular.
    Emergency Room Visits,    1,000.....................  $0.03.....................  $0.03.
     Respiratory.
    Acute Bronchitis........  1,500.....................  $0.01.....................  $0.01.
    Work Loss Days..........  130,000...................  $1.2......................  $1.2.
    Asthma Exacerbation.....  17,000....................  $0.06.....................  $0.06.
    Minor Restricted          750,000...................  $3.0......................  $3.0.
     Activity Days.
    Lower Respiratory         18,000....................  $0.02.....................  $0.02.
     Symptoms.
    Upper Respiratory         14,000....................  $0.03.....................  $0.03.
     Symptoms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are rounded to two significant figures so
  numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects. Benefits
  from reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are not included. These estimates do not include the energy
  disbenefits of $210 to $470 million.

    These benefits estimates represent the human health benefits
associated with reducing exposure to fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). The PM reductions are the result of emission limits
on PM as well as emission limits on other pollutants, including
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) for the NESHAP and criteria pollutants
for the NSPS. To estimate the human health benefits, we used the
environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) model to
quantify the changes in PM2.5-related health impacts and
monetized benefits based on changes in air quality. This approach is
consistent with the recently proposed Transport Rule RIA.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Proposed RIA
for the Transport Rule. Prepared by Office of Air and Radiation.
June. Available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/
ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For this final rule, we have expanded and updated the analysis
since the proposal in several important ways. Using the Comprehensive
Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) model, we are able to provide
cement sector-specific air quality impacts attributable to the emission
reductions anticipated from this final rule. We believe that this
modeling provides a superior representation of the geographic
distribution of air quality impacts than the national average benefit-
per-ton estimates used for the proposal analysis. Furthermore, CAMx
modeling allows us to model the reduced mercury deposition that would
occur as a result of the estimated reductions of mercury emissions.
    Although we are unable to model mercury methylation and human
consumption of mercury-contaminated fish, the mercury deposition maps
provide an improved qualitative characterization of the mercury
benefits associated with this final rulemaking. Lastly, we added
qualitative descriptions of the benefits categories that we are unable
to quantify and monetize, including the benefits of reducing hazardous
air pollutants and ecosystem effects.
    In addition, the PM2.5 benefits for this final
rulemaking reflect EPA's current interpretation of the economic
literature on mortality valuation by using the
value[hyphen]of[hyphen]a-statistical life (VSL) based on a
meta[hyphen]analysis of 26 studies.\52\ The PM2.5 benefits
are generally consistent with the methodology used in the proposal
after adjusting for the revised VSL, and these estimates reflect EPA's
decision to remove the arbitrarily assumed threshold from the health
impact function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ In June 2009, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation revised the
VSL used in air regulations to be consistent with the estimate used
by the rest of the agency. Until updated guidance is available, EPA
determined that a single peer-reviewed estimate applied consistently
across the agency best reflects the advice it has received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these rules the SO2 reductions represent a large
fraction of the total monetized benefits from reducing
PM2.5, but it is not possible to isolate the portion if the
total monetized benefits attributable to the emission reductions of
SO2 resulting from the application of HCl controls. The
benefits models assume that all fine particles, regardless of their
chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality
because there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the
development of differential effects estimates by particle type.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the
PM2.5 benefits is largely driven by the concentration
response function for premature mortality. Experts have advised EPA to
consider a variety of assumptions, including estimates based both on
empirical (epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from
scientific experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship
between PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For
this final rulemaking we cite two key empirical studies, one based on
the American Cancer Society cohort study \53\ and the extended Six
Cities cohort study.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Pope et al., 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary
Mortality, and Long-Term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air
Pollution.'' Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-
1141.
    \54\ Laden et al., 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternate models identified by experts describing the relationship
between PM2.5 and premature mortality would yield higher and
lower estimates depending upon the assumptions that they made, but most
of the expert-based estimates fall between the two epidemiology-based
estimates (Roman et al. 2008).
    EPA strives to use the best available science to support our
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. The
question of whether or not to assume a threshold in calculating the
benefits associated with reductions in PM2.5 is an issue
that affects the benefits calculations not only for this rule but for
many other EPA rulemakings and analyses. Due to these implications, we
solicited comment on appropriateness of both the no-threshold and
threshold model for PM benefits analysis as part of the proposal of
this rule.

    Three commenters did not support adopting a no-threshold model
because it would obscure the greater uncertainty associated with
calculated premature mortality at low PM concentrations and because it
would be premature prior to the conclusion of the PM NAAQS review.
    Shortly after the end of the comment period, EPA finalized the
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter,\55\ which was
reviewed twice by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and
concluded that the scientific literature consistently finds that a no-
threshold log-linear model most adequately portrays the PM-mortality
concentration-response relationship while recognizing potential
uncertainty about the exact shape of the concentration-response
function. In addition, the Human Health Subcommittee of EPA's Science
Advisory Board recently concluded, ``The HES fully supports EPA's
decision to use a no-threshold model to estimate mortality reductions.
This decision is supported by the data, which are quite consistent in
showing effects down to the lowest measured levels. Analyses of cohorts
using data from more recent years, during which time PM concentrations
have fallen, continue to report strong associations with mortality.
Therefore, there is no evidence to support a truncation of the CRF
[concentration-response function].'' \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009.
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report).
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP
Division. December. Available on the Internet at http://
cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \56\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Science Advisory
Board (U.S. EPA-SAB). 2010. Review of EPA's DRAFT Health Benefits of
the Second Section 812 Prospective Study of the Clean Air Act. EPA-
COUNCIL-10-001. June. Available on the Internet at http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
72D4EFA39E48CDB28525774500738776/$File/EPA-COUNCIL-10-001-
unsigned.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the public comments in conjunction with our review
of the scientific literature and the Science Advisory Board's comments,
we have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent scientific
advice, we are replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis
with a new ``Lowest Measured Level'' (LML) assessment. While an LML
assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the
estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view the LML as a
threshold and continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using
a full range of modeled air quality concentrations.
    Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule accrue to
populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the
Pope et al. (2002) study, about 94 percent occur among populations with
baseline exposure to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above
7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden et al. (2006) study, about 58 percent
occur among populations with baseline exposure to annual mean
PM2.5 levels at or above 10 [mu]g/m\3\. It is important to
emphasize that we have high confidence in PM2.5-related
effects down to the lowest LML of the major cohort studies. This fact
is important, because as we estimate PM-related mortality among
populations exposed to levels of PM2.5 that are successively
lower, our confidence in the results diminishes. However, our analysis
shows that the great majority of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
    It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects,
and visibility impairment. The benefits from reducing other pollutants
have not been monetized in this analysis, including reducing 4,400 tons
of NOX, 5,800 tons of hydrochloric acid, 5,200 tons of
organic HAPS, and over 16,000 pounds of mercury each year. In addition,
we were unable to quantify the additional emission reductions that
would occur if cement facilities temporarily idle or reduce capacity
utilization as a result of this regulation, or the unquantifiable
amount of reductions in condensable PM. Although we do not have
sufficient information or modeling available to provide monetized
estimates for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative assessment of
the health effects of these air pollutants in the RIA for this rule,
which is available in the docket.
    In addition, the monetized benefits estimates provided in Table 13
do not reflect the disbenefits associated with increased electricity
usage from operation of the control devices. We estimate that the
increases in emissions of NOX, SO2, PM, and
CO2 would have disbenefits valued at $210 million to $470
million at a 3% discount rate. The total monetized benefits estimates
of $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount rate) and
$6.7 billion to $17 billion (2005$, 7% discount rate) reflect these
energy disbenefits.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty
assessment found in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS RIA or 2008 Ozone
NAAQS RIA. However, the benefits analyses in these RIAs provide an
indication of the sensitivity of our results to various assumptions,
including the use of alternative concentration-response functions and
the fraction of mortality impacts at low PM2.5 levels.
    The social costs of this rulemaking are estimated at $880 million
(2005$) in the year of full implementation, and the benefits are
estimated at $7.4 billion to $18 billion (2005$, 3 percent discount
rate) for that same year. The benefits at a 7 percent discount rate are
$6.7 billion to $16 billion (2005$). Thus, net benefits of this
rulemaking are estimated at $6.5 billion to $17 billion (2005$, 3
percent discount rate). The net benefits at a 7 percent discount rate
are $5.8 billion to $16 billion (2005$). Using alternate relationships
between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied by experts,
higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most of the
expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates. EPA believes
that the benefits are likely to exceed the costs by a significant
margin even when taking into account the uncertainties in the cost and
benefit estimates.
    A final issue on benefits concerns the air impacts of increases in
imports. When a regulation leads to increases in imports and only the
domestic emission changes are considered in a benefit analysis, the
question of the impact of emissions from the increased production in
other countries should be examined. The extra emissions may have an
impact on the regulating country (the U.S.) and the other countries.
The location of these extra emissions and the pollutants involved are
both important. Our economic modeling does not involve estimates of the
origin of the imports. We also do not have information about the level
of control for facilities in other countries. Thus, estimating
disbenefits associated with these increased emissions in other
countries was beyond what we were able to do in this analysis.
    However, another limitation of our analysis produces a bias in the
opposite direction. The economic impact analysis estimated a 10 million
ton decrease in domestic production. No emission reductions were
estimated as a result of this change in production. The benefit
analysis was based on emission reductions associated with control being
applied to all facilities with no change in capacity utilization. The
increase in imports was estimated to be 3 million tons. Thus we omitted
an emission reduction associated with a 10 million ton decrease in
production in this country while also omitting an increase in emissions
for an increase in

production in other countries of less than a third of the domestic
decrease. Of course the net result of these two omissions depends on
the relative emission rates of the countries involved. Analysis of
benefits for either of these two types of emissions is beyond the
current scope of the benefit analysis.
    For more information, please refer to the RIA for this final rule
that is available in the docket.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
E.O. 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have
been documented in the docket for this action. In addition, EPA
prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
    When estimating the PM2.5-related human health benefits
and compliance costs in Table 14 below, EPA applied methods and
assumptions consistent with the state-of-the-science for human health
impact assessment, economics and air quality analysis. EPA applied its
best professional judgment in performing this analysis and believes
that these estimates provide a reasonable indication of the expected
benefits and costs to the nation of this rule. The Regulatory Impacts
Analysis (RIA) available in the docket describes in detail the
empirical basis for EPA's assumptions and characterizes the various
sources of uncertainties affecting the estimates below.
    When characterizing uncertainty in the PM-mortality relationship,
EPA has historically presented a sensitivity analysis applying
alternate assumed thresholds in the PM concentration-response
relationship. In its synthesis of the current state of the PM science,
EPA's 2009 Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Particulate Matter
concluded that a no-threshold log-linear model most adequately portrays
the PM-mortality concentration-response relationship. In the RIA
accompanying this rule, rather than segmenting out impacts predicted to
be associated levels above and below a ``bright line'' threshold, EPA
includes a ``lowest-measured-level (LML)'' that illustrates the
increasing uncertainty that characterizes exposure attributed to levels
of PM2.5 below the LML for each study. Figures provided in
the RIA show avoided PM mortality impacts predicted relative to the
baseline PM2.5 levels experienced by the population
receiving the PM2.5 mortality benefit, as well as the lowest
air quality levels measured in each of the epidemiology cohort studies.
This information allows readers to determine the portion of PM-related
mortality benefits occurring above or below the LML of each study; in
general, our confidence in the size of the estimated reduction
PM2.5-related premature mortality decreases in areas where
annual mean PM2.5 levels are further below the LML in the
cohort studies. Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, about 94 percent
occur among populations with baseline exposure to annual mean
PM2.5 levels at or above 7.5 [mu]g/m\3\. Using the Laden et
al. (2006) study, about 58 percent occur among populations with
baseline exposure to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above 10
[mu]g/m\3\. While the LML analysis provides some insight into the level
of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not
view the LML as a threshold and continues to quantify PM-related
mortality impacts using a full range of modeled air quality
concentrations.
    Table 14 shows the results of the cost and benefits analysis for
this rule.

   Table 14--Summary of the Monetized Benefits, Social Costs, and Net
     Benefits for the Final Portland Cement NESHAP and NSPS in 2013
                         [Millions of 2005$] \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   3% Discount rate    7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Final NESHAP and NSPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $926 to $950......  $926 to $950.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,800 to $15,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  4,400 tons of NOX (includes energy
                                   disbenefits).
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,400 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Final NSPS only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Total Monetized Benefits \2\...  $510 to $1,300....  $460 to $1,100.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $72...............  $72.
Net Benefits....................  $440 to $1,200....  $390 to $1,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  6,600 tons of NOX.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  520 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------

                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Final NESHAP only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $904 to $930......  $904 to $930.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,800 to $16,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,000 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Alternative: More Stringent NSPS and Final NESHAP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits \2\....  $7,400 to $18,000.  $6,700 to $16,000.
Total Social Costs \3\..........  $955 to $979......  $955 to $979.
Net Benefits....................  $6,500 to $17,000.  $5,700 to $15,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits..........  7,800 tons of NOX (includes energy
                                   disbenefits).
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,200 tons of organic HAPs.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  5,900 tons of HCl.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  16,400 pounds of mercury.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Health effects from HAPs, NO2, and SO2
                                   exposure.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Ecosystem effects.
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                  Visibility impairment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All estimates are for the implementation year (2013), and are
  rounded to two significant figures.
\2\ The total monetized benefits reflect the human health benefits
  associated with reducing exposure to PM2.5 through reductions of
  directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors such as NOX and SO2. It is
  important to note that the monetized benefits include many but not all
  health effects associated with PM2.5 exposure. Benefits are shown as a
  range from Pope et al. (2002) to Laden et al. (2006). These models
  assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical
  composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality because
  there is no clear scientific evidence that would support the
  development of differential effects estimates by particle type. The
  total monetized benefits include the energy disbenefits.
\3\ The methodology used to estimate social costs for one year in the
  multimarket model using surplus changes results in the same social
  costs for both discount rates.

    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. Subpart F
    The information requirements in the final amendments to subpart F
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2307.01.
    The final amendments to the NSPS for Portland cement plants apply
to affected facilities constructed, modified, or reconstructed after
June 16, 2008. The owner or operator of a new kiln is required to keep
daily records of clinker production, install and operate PM CEMS, and
operate NOX and SO2 CEMS. These requirements are
based on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NSPS
General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) which are mandatory for
all operators subject to new source performance standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 2,559 labor-hours per
year at a cost

of $240,064 per year. The annualized capital costs are estimated at
$45,626 per year and operation and maintenance costs are estimated at
$52,450 per year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
2. Subpart LLL
    The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Information Collection Request (ICR)
document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number 1801.07.
    In most cases, new and existing kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills at
major and area sources that are not already subject to emission limits
for THC, mercury, and PM will become subject to the limits and
associated compliance provisions in the current rule. Sources will have
to install and operate CEMS for mercury, PM, and THC. Records of all
calculations and data will be required. New compliance procedures will
also apply to area sources subject to a PM limit in a format of lbs/ton
of clinker. Cement plants also will be subject to new limits for HCl
and associated compliance provisions which include compliance tests
using EPA Method 321 and continuous monitoring for HCl for facilities
that do not use a wet scrubber for HCl control. These requirements are
based on the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) which are mandatory for
all operators subject to national emission standards. These
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by
section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to
EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which
a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 79,790 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $7.75 million per year. The average annualized
capital costs are estimated at $61.7 million per year and average
operation and maintenance costs are estimated at $192,578 per year.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent
company has no more than 750 employees depending on the size definition
for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards found at http://www.sba.gov/idc/
groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf); (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district, or special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
1. Subpart F
    After considering the economic impact of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement entities are small entities
which will not incur any impacts under these final amendments unless an
affected facility is constructed, modified, or reconstructed. Based on
our economic analysis, 7 new kilns may be constructed during the next
five years that will be subject to these NSPS amendments. One of these
kilns may be operated by a Portland cement entity that is classified as
a small entity according to the SBA small business size standards. Of
these 7 kilns, this small entity is expected to incur an annualized
compliance cost of between 1.0 and 3.0 percent of sales to comply with
the final action.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by the
selection of an emission level based on highly cost-effective controls
and specifying monitoring requirements that are the minimum to insure
compliance. In the case where there are overlapping standards between
this NSPS and the Portland Cement NESHAP, we have exempted sources from
the least stringent requirement thereby eliminated overlapping
monitoring, testing and reporting requirements by requiring that the
source comply with only the more stringent of the standards.
2. Subpart LLL
    After considering the economic impact of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We estimate
that up to 3 of the 26 existing Portland cement plants are small
entities.
    EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on the three
affected small entities by comparing compliance costs to entity
revenues. EPA's analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to
company revenue for one small entity (a Tribal government) will have an
annualized cost of less than 1 percent of sales. The other two small
businesses will have an annualized cost of between 1 and three percent
of sales.
    Although this final rule will not impact a substantial number of
small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this
rule on small entities by setting the final emissions limits at the
MACT floor, the least stringent level allowed by law. In the case where
there are overlapping standards between this NESHAP and the Portland
Cement NSPS, we have exempted sources from the least stringent
requirement thereby eliminating the overlapping monitoring, testing and
reporting requirements by requiring that the source comply with only
the more stringent of the standards. In addition, we applied MACT for
HCl emissions to major sources only. The reduced compliance costs for
two of the three small entities by a factor of 4.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C 1531-
1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to
assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and
Tribal governments and

the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to
provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or
uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
1. Subpart F
    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
As discussed earlier in this preamble, the estimated expenditures for
the private sector in the fifth year after promulgation are $50
million. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This final action is also not subject to the requirements of
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This
final action contains no requirements that apply to such governments,
imposes no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures
by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate
impacts on them.
2. Subpart LLL
    This rule contains a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the UMRA a written
statement which is summarized below.
    In developing this rule, EPA consulted with small governments under
a plan developed pursuant to section 203 of UMRA concerning the
regulatory requirements in the rule that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. EPA has determined that this final
action contains regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments because we identified one of the
facilities affected by the final rule as Tribally owned. EPA developed
a plan to permit this Tribal entity to have meaningful and timely input
into its development.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of
section 204 of the UMRA, EPA initiated consultations with the
governmental entities affected by this rule. EPA directly contacted the
facility in question to insure it was appraised of this rulemaking and
potential implications. This facility indicated it was aware of the
rulemaking and was participating in meetings with the industry trade
association concerning this rulemaking. The facility did not indicate
any special issues other than those expressed by the industry in
general, We are assuming that they have the same concerns as those
expressed by the other non-Tribally owned facilities during the
development of this final rule. Subsequent to proposal, EPA again
contacted the Tribal Government by letter with an offer of
consultation. We received no response to that letter.
    Consistent with section 205, EPA has identified and considered a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. EPA carefully examined
regulatory alternatives, and selected the lowest cost/least burdensome
alternative that EPA deems adequate to address Congressional concerns
and to effectively reduce emissions of mercury, THC and PM. EPA has
considered the costs and benefits of the final rule, and has concluded
that the costs will fall mainly on the private sector (approximately
$479 million). EPA estimates that an additional facility owned by a
Tribal government will incur approximately $1.2 million in costs per
year. Furthermore, we believe it is unlikely that State, local and
Tribal governments would begin operating large industrial facilities,
similar to those affected by this rulemaking operated by the private
sector. EPA has selected regulatory alternatives that represent the
MACT floor level of control, which is the least stringent level allowed
by law.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.''
    These two final rules do not have federalism implications. They
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected
facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to these final rules.

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

    Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or
EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing
the regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement.
1. Subpart F
    This final action does not have Tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not
have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The final rule imposes requirements on owners and operators of
specified industrial facilities and not Tribal governments. The only
Tribally owned source is not affected by the amendments to subpart F.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
2. Subpart LLL
    EPA has concluded that this action will have Tribal implications,
because it will impose substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal
governments, and the Federal government will not provide the funds
necessary to pay those costs. One of the facilities affected by this
final rule is Tribally owned. We estimate this facility will incur
direct compliance costs that are between 1 to 3 percent of sales.
Accordingly, EPA provides the following Tribal summary impact statement
as required by section 5(b).
    EPA consulted with Tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to provide them meaningful and timely input
into its development. EPA directly contacted the facility in question
to insure it was appraised of this rulemaking and potential

implications. This facility indicated it was aware of the rulemaking
and was participating in meetings with the industry trade association
concerning this rulemaking. The facility did not indicate any specific
concern, and we are assuming that they have the same concerns as those
expresses by the other non-Tribally owned facilities during the
development of this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the
Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on technology performance.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, we have concluded that this
rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects. This rule will
result in the addition of control equipment and monitoring systems for
existing and new sources.
    The final rule under subpart F will result in the addition of
alkaline scrubbers to certain kilns to reduce SO2 emissions.
We estimate the additional electrical demand to be 6.9 million kWhr per
year by the end of the 2013.
    We estimate that under the final subpart LLL rule the additional
electrical demand will be 1 billion kWhr per year and the natural gas
use will be 1.2 million MMBtu for existing sources. At the end of 2013,
electrical demand from new sources will be 180 million kWhr per year.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches through the
Enhanced NSSN Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also contacted VCS organizations, and accessed and
searched their databases.
1. Subpart F
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA has decided
to use the VCS ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,''
for its manual methods of measuring the content of the exhaust gas.
These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable alternatives to EPA
Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 7, and 7C. This standard is available from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990.
    While the Agency has identified 12 other VCS as being potentially
applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these VCS in this
rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been impractical because
they do not meet the objectives of the standards cited in this rule.
See the docket for this rule for the reasons for these determinations.
2. Subpart LLL
    This final rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA will use
ASTM D6348-03, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive
Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 providing the following
conditions are met:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-03, Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory;
    (2) In ASTM D6348-03 Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique), the
percent R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation A5.5).
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, percent R
must be 70<=R<=130. If the percent R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The percent R value for each compound must be reported in the
test report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated percent R value for that compound by using the following
equation: Reported Result = Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100 /
percent R.
    While the Agency has identified eight other VCS as being
potentially applicable to this rule, we have decided not to use these
VCS in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would have been
impractical because they do not meet the objectives of the standards
cited in this rule. See the docket for this rule for the reasons for
these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions and 63.7 (f)
of the NESHAP General Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for
permission to use alternative test methods or alternative monitoring
requirements in place of any required testing methods, performance
specifications, or procedures in the final rule and amendments.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629) (February 16, 1994)
establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable
and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate,
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of environmental
protection for all affected populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on any population, including any minority or low-income
populations. Additionally, the Agency has reviewed this rule to
determine if there was existing disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations that could be mitigated by this rulemaking. An analysis of
demographic data showed that the average of populations in close
proximity to the sources, and thus most likely to be affected by the
sources, were similar in demographic composition to national averages.
    In determining the aggregate demographic makeup of the communities
near affected sources, EPA

used census data at the block group level to identify demographics of
the populations considered to be living near affected sources, such
that they have notable exposures to current emissions from these
sources. In this approach, EPA reviewed the distributions of different
socio-demographic groups in the locations of the expected emission
reductions from this rule. The review identified those census block
groups within a circular distance of a half, 3, and 5 miles of affected
sources and determined the demographic and socio-economic composition
(e.g., race, income, education, etc.) of these census block groups. The
radius of 3 miles (or approximately 5 kilometers) has been used in
other demographic analyses focused on areas around potential
sources.57 58 59 60 EPA's demographic analysis has shown
that these areas in aggregate have similar proportions of American
Indians, African-Americans, Hispanics, Whites, and ``Other and Multi-
racial'' populations, and similar proportions of families with incomes
below the poverty level as the national average.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ U.S. GAO (Government Accountability Office). Demographics
of People Living Near Waste Facilities. Washington DC: Government
Printing Office; 1995.
    \58\ Mohai P, Saha R. ``Reassessing Racial and Socio-economic
Disparities in Environmental Justice Research''. Demography.
2006;43(2): 383-399.
    \59\ Mennis J. ``Using Geographic Information Systems to Create
and Analyze Statistical Surfaces of Populations and Risk for
Environmental Justice Analysis''. Social Science Quarterly,
2002;83(1): 281-297.
    \60\ Bullard RD, Mohai P, Wright B, Saha R, et al. Toxic Waste
and Race at Twenty 1987-2007. United Church of Christ. March, 2007.
    \61\ The results of the demographic analysis are presented in
``Review of Environmental Justice Impacts'', June 2010, a copy of
which is available in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA defines ``Environmental Justice'' to include meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin,
or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and polices.
    This final action establishes national emission standards for new
and existing cement kilns. EPA estimates that there are 100 facilities
covered by this rule. The final rule will reduce emissions of all the
listed hazardous air pollutants emitted from this source category. This
includes emissions of cadmium, HCl, lead, Hg, and organic hazardous air
pollutants. Adverse health effects from these pollutants include
cancer, irritation of the lungs, skin, and mucus membranes, effects on
the central nervous system, and damage to the kidneys, and acute health
disorders. The rule will also result in substantial reductions of
criteria pollutants such as NOX, PM (total and fine), and
SO2. SO2 and NO2 are precursors for
the formation of PM2.5 and ozone. Reducing these emissions
will reduce ozone and PM2.5 formation and associated health
effects, such as adult premature mortality, chronic and acute
bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
(Please refer to the RIA contained in the docket for this rulemaking.)

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). These final rules will be effective November 8, 2010.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 6, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.17  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], IBR approved for Sec.  60.56c(b)(4) of
subpart Ec, Sec.  60.63(f)(2) and (f)(4) of subpart F, Sec.
60.106(e)(2) of subpart J, Sec. Sec.  60.104a(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(6),
(h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5), (i)(3), (i)(4), (i)(5), (j)(3), and (j)(4),
60.105a(d)(4), (f)(2), (f)(4), (g)(2), and (g)(4), 60.106a(a)(1)(iii),
(a)(2)(iii), (a)(2)(v), (a)(2)(viii), (a)(3)(ii), and (a)(3)(v), and
60.107a(a)(1)(ii), (a)(1)(iv), (a)(2)(ii), (c)(2), (c)(4), and (d)(2)
of subpart Ja, tables 1 and 3 of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of
subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, and Sec.  60.4415(a)(2) and
(a)(3) of subpart KKKK of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
3. Section 60.62 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.62  Standards.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the
atmosphere from any kiln any gases which:
    (1) Contain particulate matter (PM) in excess of:
    (i) 0.30 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if
construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences
after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling
average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the kiln
commenced after June 16, 2008. An operating day includes all valid data
obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln operates and
excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the
kiln was not operating.
    (2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent opacity, except that this
opacity limit does not apply to any kiln subject to a PM limit in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section that uses a PM continuous emissions
monitoring system (CEMS).
    (3) Exceed 1.50 pounds of nitrogen oxide (NOX) per ton
of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification of the kiln commences

after June 16, 2008, except this limit does not apply to any alkali
bypass installed on the kiln. An operating day includes all valid data
obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln operates and
excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour period when the
kiln was not operating.
    (4) Exceed 0.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per ton of
clinker on a 30-operating day rolling average if construction,
reconstruction, or modification commences after June 16, 2008, unless
you are demonstrating a 90 percent SO2 emissions reduction
measured across the SO2 control device. An operating day
includes all valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during
which the kiln operates, and excludes any measurements made during the
daily 24-hour period when the kiln was not operating.
    (b) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the
atmosphere from any clinker cooler any gases which:
    (1) Contain PM in excess of:
    (i) 0.10 pound per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln if
construction, reconstruction, or modification of the clinker cooler
commenced after August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008.
    (ii) 0.01 pound per ton of clinker on a 30-operating day rolling
average if construction, reconstruction, or modification of the clinker
cooler commences after June 16, 2008. An operating day includes all
valid data obtained in any daily 24-hour period during which the kiln
operates, and excludes any measurements made during the daily 24-hour
period when the kiln was not operating.
    (2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater, except that this
opacity limit does not apply to any clinker cooler subject to a PM
limit in paragraph (b)(1) of this section that uses a PM CEMS.
    (3) If the kiln and clinker cooler exhaust are combined for energy
efficiency purposes and sent to a single control device, the
appropriate kiln PM limit may be adjusted using the procedures in Sec.
63.1343(b) of this chapter.
    (4) If the kiln has a separate alkali bypass stack, you must
combine the PM emissions from the bypass stack with the PM emissions
from the main kiln exhaust to determine total PM emissions.
    (c) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by Sec.  60.8 is completed, you may not discharge into the
atmosphere from any affected facility other than the kiln and clinker
cooler any gases which exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater.
    (d) If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a
different emission limit or requirement for the same pollutant under
another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, you must comply with
the most stringent emission limit or requirement and are not subject to
the less stringent requirement.

0
4. Section 60.63 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.63  Monitoring of operations.

    (a) [Reserved]
    (b) Clinker production monitoring requirements. For any kiln
subject to an emissions limitation on PM, NOX, or
SO2 emissions (lb/ton of clinker), you must:
    (1) Determine hourly clinker production by one of two methods:
    (i) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of
clinker produced in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring
hourly clinker production must be maintained within 5
percent accuracy.
    (ii) Install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a permanent weigh
scale system to measure and record weight rates of the amount of feed
to the kiln in tons of mass per hour. The system of measuring feed must
be maintained within 5 percent accuracy. Calculate your
hourly clinker production rate using a kiln specific feed-to-clinker
ratio based on reconciled clinker production determined for accounting
purposes and recorded feed rates. This ratio should be updated monthly.
Note that if this ratio changes at clinker reconciliation, you must use
the new ratio going forward, but you do not have to retroactively
change clinker production rates previously estimated;
    (2) Determine, record, and maintain a record of the accuracy of the
system of measuring hourly clinker or feed production before initial
use (for new sources) or within 30 days of the effective date of this
rule (for existing sources). During each quarter of source operation,
you must determine, record, and maintain a record of the ongoing
accuracy of the system of measuring hourly clinker or feed production.
    (3) Record the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates;
and
    (4) Develop an emissions monitoring plan in accordance with
paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this section.
    (c) You must monitor PM emissions of a kiln or clinker cooler
subject to a PM emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(1)(ii) or (b)(1)(ii)
according to the applicable requirements below:
    (1) Install and operate a PM CEMS in accordance with Performance
Specification 11 of appendix B and Procedure 2 of appendix F to part 60
of this chapter. The performance test method and the correlation test
method for Performance Specification 11 shall be Method 5 or Method 5i
of appendix A to this part. The owner or operator must also develop an
emissions monitoring plan in accordance with paragraphs (i)(1) through
(i)(4) of this section.
    (2) Perform Relative Response Audits annually and Response
Correlation Audits every 3 years.
    (3) Collect readings at least every 15 minutes in order to
calculate the 30-operating day rolling average to determine PM
emissions. Calculate the 30-operating day rolling average using
equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.006

Where:

PM15 minutes = PM emissions from a 15-minute period.
n = number of 15 minute periods with valid data over the preceding
30 operating days.

    (d) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring and recording the concentration
by volume of NOX emissions into the atmosphere for any kiln
subject to the NOX emissions limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(3). If
the kiln has an alkali bypass, NOX emissions from the alkali
bypass do not need to be monitored, and NOX emission
monitoring of the kiln exhaust may be done upstream of any comingled
alkali bypass gases.
    (e) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain an
instrument for continuously monitoring and

recording the concentration by volume of SO2 emissions into
the atmosphere for any kiln subject to the SO2 emissions
limit in Sec.  60.62(a)(4). If you are complying with the alternative
90 percent SO2 emissions reduction emission limit, you must
also continuously monitor and record the concentration by volume of
SO2 present at the wet scrubber inlet.
    (f) You must install, operate, and maintain according to
Performance Specification 2 (40 CFR part 60, appendix B) and the
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section each CEMS
required under paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.
    (1) The span value of each NOX monitor must be set at
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential NOX
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit
at full clinker production capacity.
    (2) You must conduct performance evaluations of each NOX
monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. The owner or operator must
use Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E of appendix A-4 to part 60 for
conducting the relative accuracy evaluations. The method ASME PTC
19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
7 or 7C of Appendix A-4 to part 60.
    (3) The span value for the SO2 monitor must be set at
125 percent of the maximum estimated hourly potential SO2
emission concentration that translates to the applicable emission limit
at full clinker production capacity.
    (4) You must conduct performance evaluations of each SO2
monitor according to the requirements in Sec.  60.13(c) and Performance
Specification 2 of Appendix B to part 60. You must use Methods 6, 6A,
or 6C of Appendix A-4 to part 60 for conducting the relative accuracy
evaluations. The method ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  60.17) is an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 6 or 6A of Appendix A-4 to part
60.
    (5) You must comply with the quality assurance requirements in
Procedure 1 of Appendix F to part 60 for each monitor, including
quarterly accuracy determinations for monitors, and daily calibration
drift tests.
    (g) For each CEMS required under paragraphs (c) through (e) of this
section:
    (1) You must operate the monitoring system and collect data at all
required intervals at all times the affected source is operating,
except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
    (2) You may not use data recorded during the monitoring system
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions,
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. A
monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions. An owner or operator must
use all the data collected during all other periods in assessing the
operation of the control device and associated control system.
    (3) You must meet the requirements of Sec.  60.13(h) when
determining the 1-hour averages of emissions data.
    (h) You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments
for continuously measuring and recording the pollutant per mass flow
rate to the atmosphere for each kiln subject to the PM emissions limits
in Sec.  60.62(a)(1)(i) and (ii), the NOX emissions limit in
Sec.  60.62(a)(3), or the SO2 emissions limit in Sec.
60.62(a)(4) according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through
(10) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator must install each sensor of the flow rate
monitoring system in a location that provides representative
measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of
the NOX, SO2 or PM CEMS, taking into account the
manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of
the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output
proportional to that flow rate.
    (2) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure the
exhaust gas flow rate over a range that extends from a value of at
least 20 percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow rate to a
value of at least 20 percent greater than the highest expected exhaust
gas flow rate.
    (3) The flow rate monitoring system must have a minimum accuracy of
5 percent of the flow rate.
    (4) The flow rate monitoring system must be equipped with a data
acquisition and recording system that is capable of recording values
over the entire range specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (5) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data
acquisition and recording system for the flow rate monitoring system
must be compatible with the output signal of the flow rate sensors used
in the monitoring system.
    (6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to complete a
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
    (7) The flow rate sensor must have provisions to determine the
daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3
of Performance Specification 2 in Appendix B to part 60 of this chapter
for a discussion of CD).
    (i) Conduct the CD tests at two reference signal levels, zero
(e.g., 0 to 20 percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 70 percent of
span).
    (ii) The absolute value of the difference between the flow monitor
response and the reference signal must be equal to or less than 3
percent of the flow monitor span.
    (8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow
rate monitoring system according to section 8.2 of Performance
Specification 6 of Appendix B to part 60 of the chapter, with the
exceptions noted in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) and (ii).
    (i) The relative accuracy test is to evaluate the flow rate
monitoring system alone rather than a continuous emission rate
monitoring system.
    (ii) The relative accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system shall
be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the reference method
data.
    (9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system
at least once per year by repeating the relative accuracy test
specified in paragraph (h)(8).
    (10) You must operate the flow rate monitoring system and record
data during all periods of operation of the affected facility including
periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for periods of
monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring
system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance
or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration
checks and required zero and span adjustments.
    (i) Development and Submittal (Upon Request) of Monitoring Plans.
If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emission limit
through performance stack testing or other

emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan
according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this
section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA
Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (h)
of this section and Sec.  63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also
meet the requirements specified in paragraph Sec.  63.1350(m)(10) of
this chapter.
    (1) For each continuous monitoring system (CMS) required in this
section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for
approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses
paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit
this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 60 days
before the initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
    (i) Installation of the CEMS sampling probe or other interface at a
measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that
the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions
(e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
    (ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer,
and the data collection and reduction systems; and
    (iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria
(e.g., calibrations).
    (2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address
paragraphs (i)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii);
    (ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d); and
    (iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
    (3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (4) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.

0
5. Section 60.64 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.64  Test methods and procedures

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  60.8, you
must use reference methods and procedures and the test methods in
appendix A of this part or other methods and procedures as specified in
this section, except as provided in Sec.  60.8(b).
    (b) Compliance with the PM standards in Sec.  60.62 is determined
using the procedures specified in Sec.  60.63.
    (1) The PM emission rate is calculated using Equation 2 of this
section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.007

Where:

E = emission rate of particulate matter, lb/ton of kiln feed;
Cs = concentration of particulate matter, gr/scf;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or
dry), dscf/hr;
P = total kiln feed (dry basis) rate, ton/hr. For kilns constructed,
modified or reconstructed on or after June 16, 2008,
p = total kiln clinker production rate; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb.

    (2) Suitable methods shall be used to determine the kiln feed rate
(P), except fuels.
    (3) Method 9 and the procedures in Sec.  60.11 must be used to
determine opacity.
    (4) Any sources other than kilns (including associated alkali
bypass and cooler) subject to the 10 percent opacity limit must follow
the appropriate monitoring procedures in Sec.  63.1350(f), (m)(1)
through (4), (m)(10) through (11), (o), and (p) of this chapter.
    (5) If your kiln is not equipped with a PM CEMS meeting the
requirements of Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part 60,
and the kiln (including any associated alkali bypass and clinker
cooler) was constructed, modified or reconstructed on or after June 16,
2008, you must conduct a performance test every 5 years following the
initial performance test. Kilns (including any associated alkali bypass
and clinker cooler) constructed, reconstructed, or modified after
August 17, 1971 but on or before June 16, 2008 must conduct a
performance test every 5 years if not equipped with a PM CEMS meeting
the requirements of Performance Specification 11 of Appendix B to part
60.
    (c) You must calculate and record the 30-operating day rolling
emission rate of NOX and SO2 as the total of all
hourly emissions data for a cement kiln in the preceding 30 days,
divided by the total tons of clinker produced in that kiln during the
same 30-operating day period using Equation 3 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR09SE10.008

Where:
E = emission rate of NOX or SO2, lb/ton of
clinker production;
Cs = concentration of NOX or SO2,
gr/scf;
Qs = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, where
Cs and Qs are on the same basis (either wet or
dry), scf/hr;
P = total kiln clinker production rate, ton/hr; and
K = conversion factor, 7000 gr/lb.

    (d) 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 this subpart, you must
submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data,
except opacity data, to EPA by successfully submitting the data
electronically to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/
ert_tool.html/).

0
6. Section 60.66 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  60.66  Delegation of authority.

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or
a delegated authority such as a State, local, or Tribal agency. You
should contact your U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this
subpart is delegated to a State, local, or Tribal agency within your
State.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State, local, or Tribal agency, the approval authorities contained
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section are retained by the
Administrator of the U.S EPA and are not transferred to the State,
local, or Tribal agency.
    (1) Approval of an alternative to any non-opacity emissions
standard.
    (2) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  60.8(b).
A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (3) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  60.13(i).
A ``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under
Sec.  60.7(b) through (f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/
reporting'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
7. Appendix B to 40 CFR Part 60 is amended as follows:
0
a. Revise Performance Specification 12A.
0
b. Add Performance Specification 12B.

Appendix B to Part 60--Performance Specifications

* * * * *

Performance Specification 12A--Specifications and Test Procedures for
Total Vapor Phase Mercury Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems in
Stationary Sources

1.0 Scope and Application

    1.1 Analyte. The analyte measured by these procedures and
specifications is total vapor phase mercury (Hg) in the flue gas,
which represents the sum of elemental Hg (Hg[deg], CAS Number 7439-
97-6) and oxidized forms of gaseous Hg (Hg+2), in
concentration units of micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\).
    1.2 Applicability.
    1.2.1 This specification is for evaluating the acceptability of
total vapor phase Hg continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS)
installed at stationary sources at the time of or soon after
installation and whenever specified in the regulations. The Hg CEMS
must be capable of measuring the total concentration in [mu]g/m\3\
of vapor phase Hg, regardless of speciation, and recording that
concentration at standard conditions on a wet or dry basis. These
specifications do not address measurement of particle bound Hg.
    1.2.2 This specification is not designed to evaluate an
installed CEMS's performance over an extended period of time nor
does it identify specific calibration techniques and auxiliary
procedures to assess the CEMS's performance. The source owner or
operator, however, is responsible to calibrate, maintain, and
operate the CEMS properly. The Administrator may require, under
section 114 of the Clean Air Act, the operator to conduct CEMS
performance evaluations at other times besides the initial
performance evaluation test. See Sec. Sec.  60.13(c) and 63.8(e)(1).
    1.2.3 Mercury monitoring approaches not entirely suited to these
specifications may be approvable under the alternative monitoring or
alternative test method provisions of Sec.  60.13(i) and Sec.
63.8(f) or Sec.  60.8(b)(3) and Sec.  63.7(f), respectively.

2.0 Summary of Performance Specification

    Procedures for determining CEMS relative accuracy, linearity,
and calibration drift are outlined. CEMS installation and
measurement location specifications, data reduction procedures, and
performance criteria are included.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) means the total
equipment required to measure a pollutant concentration. The system
generally consists of the following three major subsystems:
    3.2 Sample Interface means that portion of the CEMS used for one
or more of the following: sample acquisition, sample transport,
sample conditioning, and protection of the monitor from the effects
of the stack effluent.
    3.3 Hg Analyzer means that portion of the Hg CEMS that measures
the total vapor phase Hg mass concentration and generates a
proportional output.
    3.4 Data Recorder means that portion of the CEMS that provides a
permanent electronic record of the analyzer output. The data
recorder may provide automatic data reduction and CEMS control
capabilities.
    3.5 Span Value means the measurement range as specified in the
applicable regulation or other requirement. If the span is not
specified in the applicable regulation or other requirement, then it
must be a value approximately equivalent to two times the emission
standard. Unless otherwise specified, the span value may be rounded
up to the nearest multiple of 10.
    3.6 Measurement Error Test means a test procedure in which the
accuracy of the concentrations measured by a CEMS at three or more
points over its measurement range is evaluated using reference
gases. For Hg CEMS, elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg\0\ and mercuric
chloride, HgCl2) gas standards of known concentration are
used for this procedure.
    3.7 Measurement Error (ME) means the absolute value of the
difference between the concentration indicated by the CEMS and the
known concentration of a reference gas, expressed as a percentage of
the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the sampling
interface, is challenged.
    3.8 Calibration Drift (CD) means the absolute value of the
difference between the CEMS output response and either an upscale Hg
reference gas or a zero-level Hg reference gas, expressed as a
percentage of the span value, when the entire CEMS, including the
sampling interface, is challenged after a stated period of operation
during which no unscheduled maintenance or repair took place.
    3.9 Relative Accuracy Test Procedure means a test procedure
consisting of at least nine test runs, in which the accuracy of the
concentrations measured by a CEMS is evaluated by comparison against
concurrent measurements made with a reference method (RM). Relative
accuracy tests repeated on a regular, on-going basis are referred to
as relative accuracy test audits or RATAs.
    3.10 Relative Accuracy (RA) means the absolute mean difference
between the pollutant concentrations determined by the CEMS and the
values determined by the RM plus the 2.5 percent error confidence
coefficient of a series of tests divided by the mean of the RM
tests. Alternatively, for sources with an average RM concentration
less than 5.0 micrograms per standard cubic meter ([mu]g/scm), the
RA may be expressed as the absolute value of the difference between
the mean CEMS and RM values.

4.0 Interferences [Reserved]

5.0 Safety

    The procedures required under this performance specification may
involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This
performance specification may not address all of the safety problems
associated with these procedures. It is the responsibility of the
user to establish appropriate safety and health practices and
determine the applicable regulatory limitations prior to performing
these procedures. The CEMS user's manual and materials recommended
by the RM should be consulted for specific precautions to be taken.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    6.1 CEMS Equipment Specifications.
    6.1.1 Data Recorder Scale. The Hg CEMS data recorder output
range must include the full range of expected Hg concentration
values in the gas stream to be sampled including zero and the span
value.
    6.1.2 The Hg CEMS design should also provide for the
determination of CD and ME at a zero value (zero to 20 percent of
the span value) and at upscale values (between 50 and 100 percent of
the span value). The Hg CEMS must be constructed to permit the
introduction of known concentrations of Hg and HgCl2
separately into the sampling system of the CEMS immediately
preceding the sample extraction filtration system such that the
entire CEMS can be challenged.
    6.2 Reference Gas Delivery System. The reference gas delivery
system must be designed so that the flowrate exceeds the sampling
system flow requirements of the CEMS and that the gas is delivered
to the CEMS at atmospheric pressure.
    6.3 Other equipment and supplies, as needed by the reference
method used for the Relative Accuracy Test Procedure. See Section
8.6.2.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Reference Gases. Reference gas standards are required for
both elemental and oxidized Hg (Hg and mercuric chloride,
HgCl2). The use of National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST)-traceable standards and reagents is required. The
following gas concentrations are required.
    7.1.1 Zero-level. 0 to 20 percent of the span value.
    7.1.2 Mid-level. 50 to 60 percent of the span value.
    7.1.3 High-level. 80 to 100 percent of the span value.
    7.2 Reference gas standards may also be required for the
reference methods. See Section 8.6.2.

8.0 Performance Specification Test Procedure

    8.1 Installation and Measurement Location Specifications.
    8.1.1 CEMS Installation. Install the CEMS at an accessible
location downstream of all pollution control equipment. Place the
probe outlet or other sampling interface at a point or location in
the stack (or vent) representative of the stack gas concentration of
Hg. Since the Hg CEMS sample system normally extracts gas from a
single point in the stack, a location that has been shown to be free
of stratification for Hg or, alternatively, SO2 is
recommended. If the cause of failure to meet the RA test requirement
is determined to be the measurement location and a satisfactory
correction technique cannot be established, the Administrator may
require the CEMS to be relocated. Measurement locations and points