[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 143 (Friday, July 24, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44960-44992]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12588]

Vol. 85

Friday,

No. 143

July 24, 2020

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 143 / Friday, July 24, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

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

Environmental Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015; FRL-10009-60-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT08

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Lime
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the Lime Manufacturing source category regulated
under national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP). In addition, we are taking final action addressing periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). These final amendments
include new provisions requiring electronic reporting. We are
finalizing our proposed determination that the risks are acceptable and
that the current NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. We determined that there are no developments in
practices, processes, or control technologies that necessitate
revisions to the standards.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 24, 2020. The incorporation
by reference (IBR) of certain publications listed in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 24, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0015. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room was
closed to public visitors on March 31, 2020, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. There is a
temporary suspension of mail delivery to the EPA, and no hand
deliveries are currently accepted. For further information and updates
on EPA Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Jim Eddinger, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-01),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information regarding the risk
modeling methodology, contact James Hirtz, Health and Environmental
Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information about the applicability
of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact Sara Ayres, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. EPA Region 5 (Mail Code E-19), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ACI activated carbon injection
AEGL acute exposure guideline level
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRA Congressional Review Act
D/F dioxins and furans
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG emergency response planning guideline
ESP electrostatic precipitator
FF fabric filter
FTIR Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy
HAP hazardous air pollutants(s)
HCl hydrochloric acid
HF hydrofluoric acid
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OM&M operations, maintenance, and monitoring
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS Performance Specification
PSH processed stone handling
REL recommended exposure limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTR Risk and Technology Review
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
the Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standard

    Background information. On September 16, 2019, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP based on our RTR. In
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the rule. We
summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble.
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's
responses to those comments is available in Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for the Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and
Technology Review, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015. A ``track
changes'' version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Lime Manufacturing source category and how does
the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    C. What changes did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source
category in our September 16, 2019, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of SSM?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source
Category
    B. Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category
    C. SSM for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category
    D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Lime Manufacturing
Source Category
    E. IBR
    F. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Lime Manufacturing
source category
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected facilities?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

                 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          NESHAP and source category                                     NAICS\1\ code
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime Manufacturing Plants....................  32741, 33111, 3314, 327125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

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

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/lime-manufacturing-plants-national-emission-standards-hazardous-air. Following publication in the
Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version and
key technical documents at this same website.
    Additional information is available on the RTR website at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/risk-and-technology-review-national-emissions-standards-hazardous. This information
includes an overview of the RTR program and links to project websites
for the RTR source categories.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(the Court) by September 22, 2020. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to
enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, we must identify categories of sources
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then
promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources''
are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a
rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of

HAP. For major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect
the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures,
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited
to, those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications;
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture,
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The EPA promulgated the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP on January
5, 2004 (69 FR 394). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA. The lime manufacturing industry consists of facilities
that use a lime kiln to produce lime product from limestone by
calcination. The source category covered by this MACT standard
currently includes 35 facilities.
    As promulgated in 2004, the NESHAP regulates HAP emissions from all
new and existing lime manufacturing plants that are major sources, co-
located with major sources, or are part of major sources. However, lime
manufacturing plants located at pulp and paper mills or at beet sugar
factories are not subject to the NESHAP. Other captive lime
manufacturing plants, such as (but not limited to) those at steel mills
and magnesia production facilities, are subject to the NESHAP. See 67
FR 78053 explaining the basis for these determinations. A lime
manufacturing plant is defined as any plant which uses a lime kiln to
produce lime product from limestone or other calcareous material by
calcination. However, the NESHAP specifically excludes lime kilns that
use only calcium carbonate waste sludge from water softening processes
as the feedstock.
    The NESHAP defines the affected source as follows: Each lime kiln
and its associated cooler and each individual processed stone handling
(PSH) operations system. The PSH operations system includes all
equipment associated with PSH operations beginning at the process stone
storage bin(s) or open storage pile(s) and ending where the process
stone is fed into the kiln. It includes man-made process stone storage
bins (but not open process stone storage piles), conveying system
transfer points, bulk loading or unloading systems, screening
operations, surge bins, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors. The
materials processing operations associated with lime products, lime
kiln dust handling, quarry or mining operations, limestone sizing
operations, and fuels are not subject to the NESHAP. Finally, lime
hydrators and cooler nuisance dust collectors are not included under
the definition of affected source under the NESHAP.
    The NESHAP established particulate matter (PM) emission limits for
lime kilns, coolers, and PSH operations with stacks. The NESHAP also
established opacity limits for PSH operations without stacks and for
kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and fabric
filters (FF). For kilns equipped with wet scrubbers, the NESHAP
established scrubbing liquid flow rate and exhaust gas stream pressure
drop limits. PM serves as a surrogate for the non-volatile and semi-
volatile metal HAP. The NESHAP also regulates opacity or visible
emissions from most of the PSH operations, with opacity also serving as
a surrogate for non-volatile and semivolatile HAP metals. Refer to
section II.B of the proposal preamble (84 FR 48711, September 16, 2019)
for additional information on the HAP emissions regulated by the
NESHAP.

C. What changes did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source
category in our September 16, 2019, proposal?

    On September 16, 2019, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP, 40 CFR part
63, subpart AAAAA, that took into consideration the RTR analyses. In
the proposed rule, we proposed:
     No revisions to the numerical emission limits based on the
RTR;
     revisions to the SSM provisions of the NESHAP in order to
ensure that they are consistent with the Court decision in Sierra Club
v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which vacated two provisions
that exempted source owners and operators from the requirement to
comply with otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emission standards
during periods of SSM;

     a requirement for electronic submittal of notifications,
semi-annual reports, and compliance reports (which includes performance
test reports); and
     IBR of alternative test methods and references.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Lime Manufacturing source
category. This action also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP,
including revising the SSM provisions of the NESHAP; a requirement for
electronic submittal of notifications, semi-annual reports, compliance
reports, and performance test reports; adding an alternative test
method to EPA Method 320; and IBR of alternative test methods and
references to updated alternative test methods. This action also
reflects several changes to the September 2019 proposal in
consideration of comments received during the public comment period
described in section IV of this preamble.

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

    The EPA proposed no changes to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA NESHAP
based on the risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
this action, we are finalizing our proposed determination that risks
from the source category are acceptable, the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards
are not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA
received no new data or other information during the public comment
period that causes us to change that proposed determination. Therefore,
we are not making any revisions to the existing standards under CAA
section 112(f), and we are readopting the existing standards.

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

    We determined that there are no developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies that necessitate revisions to the
MACT standards for this source category. Therefore, we are not
finalizing revisions to the MACT standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of SSM?

    The EPA is finalizing, with some revisions, the proposed amendments
to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP to remove and revise provisions
related to SSM. In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d
1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court vacated portions of two provisions in
the EPA's CAA section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP
during periods of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM
exemption contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), holding that under
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that there must always be a CAA section 112 standard that
applies. We are finalizing our proposal to eliminate the SSM exemption
in this rule. As detailed in section IV.D of the proposal preamble (84
FR 48727, September 16, 2019), we proposed to require that the emission
limitations apply at all times (see 40 CFR 63.7100(a)), consistent with
the Court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008).
    We have also revised Table 8 to subpart AAAAA of part 63 (the
General Provisions applicability table) in several respects, as is
explained in more detail below in section IV.C. For example, we have
eliminated the incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement
that the source develops an SSM plan. We have also eliminated and
revised certain recordkeeping and reporting that is related to the SSM
exemption as described in detail in the proposal and summarized below
in section IV.C. As discussed in the proposal preamble, these revisions
are consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 63.7100(a) that the
standards apply at all times. Refer to section IV.C of this preamble
for a detailed discussion of these amendments.
    The EPA is finalizing standards for startup and shutdown that
differ in some respects from the startup and shutdown standards that
were proposed. Changes from the proposal to the standards for periods
of startup and shutdown being finalized reflect the EPA's re-evaluation
of appropriate startup and shutdown standards in light of public
comments. The EPA's rationale for those changes is discussed in section
IV.C. below.
    The proposed definition of ``Startup'' has been revised by changing
the wording from ``lime product'' to ``on-specification lime product''
and adding an alternate ending to startup. Commenters stated that the
term ``lime product'' is not specific enough and that off-specification
product is discharged almost simultaneously upon startup. In addition,
the EPA is not finalizing the proposed work practices for periods of
startup. For periods of startup, the EPA has instead established
opacity emission limits for kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs. The EPA is
not establishing different standards for kilns equipped with wet
scrubbers during periods of startup and such kilns must comply with the
same standard that apply at all other times. Also, during shutdown,
kilns equipped with FFs, ESPs, or wet scrubbers must comply with the
same standards that apply during normal operation. (See Table 2 of 40
CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA--Startup and Shutdown Emission Limits).
    Further, the EPA is not finalizing different standards for
malfunctions and sources must meet applicable standards during periods
of malfunction. As discussed in the September 16, 2018, proposal
preamble, the EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not requiring emissions
that occur during periods of malfunction to be factored into
development of CAA section 112 standards, although the EPA has the
discretion to set standards for malfunctions where feasible. Refer to
section IV.D of the proposal preamble for further discussion of the
EPA's rationale for the decision not to set standards for malfunctions.

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

    Consistent with the proposal, the EPA is finalizing the electronic
reporting requirements, specifically that owners or operators of lime
manufacturing plants submit electronic copies of required performance
test reports, performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance
reports through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using the
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
    We are finalizing an alternative test method to EPA Method 320 and
incorporating several test methods by reference, as discussed further
in section IV.E of this preamble. We are also finalizing additional
changes that address technical and editorial corrections, as proposed
and as described in section IV.F of this preamble.

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

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this
action are effective on July 24, 2020. The compliance date for the
revised requirements for affected sources that commenced construction
or reconstruction on or before September 16, 2019, is January 20, 2021,
with the exception of the vacated SSM exemptions contained in 40 CFR
63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). We are revising

Table 9 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA to clarify that for all
affected sources, these exemptions do not apply given the court vacatur
in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The compliance
date for the revised requirements for affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction after September 16, 2019, is July 24,
2020 or upon initial startup, whichever is later. We are finalizing
changes, as proposed, that would impact ongoing compliance requirements
for 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA. As discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, we are finalizing the requirement that performance test
results, performance evaluation reports, and the semiannual reports
using the new template be submitted electronically. We are also
finalizing changes to the requirements for SSM. For example, we are
removing the exemption from the requirements to meet the standard
during SSM periods and removing the requirement to develop and
implement an SSM plan, as proposed. Our experience with similar
industries that have been required to convert reporting mechanisms,
install necessary hardware, install necessary software, become familiar
with the process of submitting performance test results electronically
through the EPA's CEDRI, test these new electronic submission
capabilities, reliably employ electronic reporting, and convert
logistics of reporting processes to different time-reporting
parameters, shows that a time period of a minimum of 90 days, and more
typically, 180 days, is generally necessary to successfully complete
these changes. Our experience with similar industries further shows
that this sort of regulated facility generally requires a time period
of 180 days to read and understand the amended rule requirements;
evaluate their operations to ensure that they can meet the required
standards during periods of startup and shutdown as defined in the rule
and make any necessary adjustments; adjust parameter monitoring and
recording systems to accommodate revisions; and update their operations
to reflect the revised requirements. The EPA recognizes the confusion
that multiple different compliance dates for individual requirements
would create and the additional burden such an assortment of dates
would impose. From our assessment of the timeframe needed for
compliance with the entirety of the revised requirements, the EPA
considers a period of 180 days to be the most expeditious compliance
period practicable, and, thus, is finalizing the requirement that
existing affected sources be in compliance with all of this
regulation's revised requirements within 180 days of the regulation's
effective date.

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

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary
and response document available in the docket.

A. Residual Risk Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the Lime
Manufacturing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), the EPA conducted a risk review and
presented the results for the review, along with our proposed decisions
regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in the
September 16, 2019, proposed rule for the Lime Manufacturing source
category (84 FR 48708). The results of the risk assessment are
presented briefly in Table 1 of this preamble and in the risk report
titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Plants
Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review
Proposed Rule, and sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR
48708, September 16, 2019) available in the docket for this action.

                                 Table 1--Inhalation Risk Assessment Summary for Lime Manufacturing \1\ Source Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Maximum individual    Population at increased  Annual cancer incidence      Maximum chronic
                                       cancer risk (in 1     risk of cancer >= 1-in-  (cases per year)  based    noncancer TOSHI \4\
                                     million) \3\  based on  1  million based on . .          on . . .              based on . . .           Maximum
                                             . . .                      .            --------------------------------------------------  screening acute
     Number of facilities \2\      --------------------------------------------------                                                   noncancer HQ \5\
                                      Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable     Actual     Allowable    based on actual
                                     emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions   emissions    emissions level
                                       level       level        level       level        level       level        level       level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35................................           1            2          12          450       0.001        0.003        0.04         0.05         0.6 (REL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on actual and allowable emissions.
\2\ Number of facilities evaluated in the risk assessment. Includes 35 operating facilities subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA.
\3\ Maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\4\ Maximum target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI). The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Lime Manufacturing source category is the
  respiratory system.
\5\ The maximum estimated acute exposure concentration was divided by available short-term threshold values to develop an array of hazard quotient (HQ)
  values. The acute HQ shown was based upon the lowest acute 1-hour dose-response value, the recommended exposure limit (REL) for elemental mercury.
  When an HQ exceeds 1, we also show the HQ using the next lowest available acute dose-response value.

    The results of the chronic inhalation cancer risk assessment, based
on actual emissions, show the estimated maximum individual cancer risk
(MIR) posed by the 35 facilities is 1-in-1 million, with metals,
aldehydes, and organic HAP emissions from the lime kiln and cooler
exhaust as the major contributors to the risk. The total estimated
cancer incidence based on actual emission levels is 0.001 excess cancer
cases per year, or one excess case every 1,000 years. About 12 people
are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1
million based on actual emissions from HAP emitted from the 35
facilities in this source category. The maximum chronic noncancer
hazard index (HI) for the source category is estimated to be less than
1 (0.04) based on actual emissions of hydrochloric acid (HCl), nickel
compounds, and acrolein emitted from lime kiln and cooler exhaust. No
one is estimated to have a TOSHI greater than 1 based on actual
emissions.

    The EPA also evaluated the cancer risk at the maximum emissions
allowed by the MACT standard, or ``MACT-allowable emissions.'' Risk
results from the inhalation risk assessment using the MACT-allowable
emissions indicate that the cancer MIR is 2-in-1 million with metals,
aldehydes, and organic HAP emissions from lime kiln and cooler exhaust
driving the risks, and that the maximum chronic noncancer TOSHI value
is 0.05 with HCl, nickel compounds, and acrolein emissions from lime
kiln and cooler exhaust driving the TOSHI. The total cancer incidence
estimated based on allowable emissions from this source category is
0.003 excess cancer cases per year or one excess case every 333 years.
Based on MACT-allowable emission rates, approximately 450 people are
estimated to have cancer risks above 1-in-1 million. No people are
estimated to have a noncancer HI above 1 based on allowable emissions.
    For the Lime Manufacturing source category, the maximum acute HQ is
0.6 based on the REL, driven by actual emissions of elemental mercury.
By definition, the acute REL represents a health-protective level of
exposure, with effects not anticipated below those levels, even for
repeated exposures.
    We also conducted a multipathway screening assessment for the
source category, and the results of the screening assessment are
presented in the risk report titled Residual Risk Assessment for the
Lime Manufacturing Plants Source Category in Support of the 2019 Risk
and Technology Review Proposed Rule, and section IV of the proposal
preamble (84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019) available in the docket for
this action. A screening value is not an estimate of the cancer risk or
a noncancer HQ (or HI). Rather, a screening value represents a high-end
estimate of what the risk or HQ may be. For this source category the
highest screening values were from mercury emissions, with a Tier 2
screening value of 5 and a Tier 3 screening value of 2 for this
noncarcinogen. We are confident that if a refined multipathway risk
assessment was conducted, the HQ for mercury would be lower than 2.
Further details on the Tier 3 screening assessment can be found in
Appendix 11 of Residual Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule. Dioxin and arsenic emissions resulted in a Tier 2 cancer
screening value of 20, which means that we are confident that the
multipathway cancer risk is lower than 20-in-1 million.
    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to go beyond the
Tier 3 assessment for mercury (to a site-specific assessment) or beyond
the Tier 2 cancer screening assessment. As explained above, the mercury
screening value of 2 is a high-end estimate of what the risk or hazard
may be and can be interpreted to mean that we are confident that the HQ
would be lower than 2. Similarly, we are confident that the excess
cancer risk is less than 20-in-1 million, and evaluation under Tier 3
or a site-specific assessment would further reduce the estimated risk.
Further, risk results from four site-specific mercury assessments the
EPA has conducted for four RTR source categories resulted in noncancer
HQs that range from 50 times to 800 times lower than the respective
Tier 2 mercury screening value for those facilities (refer to Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015 for a copy of these reports).\2\ Based on our
review of these analyses, we expect if we were to perform a site-
specific assessment for the Lime Manufacturing source category, the
mercury HQ would be at least a one order of magnitude less than the
Tier 2 non-cancer screening value for mercury. Thus, the EPA is
confident that the mercury HQ would be less than 1, if further refined
to incorporate enhanced site-specific analyses such as improved model
boundary identification with improved soil/water run-off calculations
and AERMOD deposition outputs used in the TRIM.FaTE model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA Docket records: Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk
Assessment for the Taconite Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the Risk and Technology Review 2019 Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Integrated Iron and Steel
Source Category in Support of the Risk and Technology Review 2019
Proposed Rule; Appendix 11 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Source Category in Support of the 2018
Risk and Technology Review Final Rule; and Appendix 11 of the
Residual Risk Assessment for the Coal and Oil-Fired EGU Source
Category in Support of the 2018 Risk and Technology Review Proposed
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions
of lead, the EPA compared modeled annual lead concentrations to the
secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) level for lead
(0.15 milligram per cubic meter (mg/m\3\), arithmetic mean
concentration over a 3-month period). The highest annual average lead
concentration, 0.0007 mg/m\3\, is far below the NAAQS level for lead,
indicating a low potential for multipathway impacts.
    The EPA also conducted an environmental risk screening assessment
for the Lime Manufacturing source category for the following
pollutants: Arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and furans (D/F), HCl, hydrogen
fluoride (HF), lead, mercury (methyl mercury and mercuric chloride),
and polycyclic organic matter (POM). In the Tier 1 screening analysis
for HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in the environment
(PB-HAP) (other than lead, which was evaluated differently), arsenic,
cadmium, and POM emissions had no exceedances of any of the ecological
benchmarks evaluated. D/F emissions had a Tier 1 exceedance at 31
facilities for a surface soil benchmark by a maximum screening value of
30. Divalent mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances for the following
benchmarks: Sediment threshold level (one facility), surface soil
threshold level--plant communities (25 facilities), and surface soil
threshold level--invertebrate communities (32 facilities) by a maximum
screening value of 20. Methyl mercury emissions had Tier 1 exceedances
for the following benchmarks: Fish (avian/piscivores) NOAEL--Merganser
(one facility), surface soil no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
for mammalian insectivores--shrew (13 facilities), and surface soil
NOAEL for avian ground insectivores--woodcock (33 facilities) by a
maximum screening value of 40. A Tier 2 screening analysis was
performed for D/F, divalent mercury, and methyl mercury emissions. In
the Tier 2 screening analysis, there were no exceedances of any of the
ecological benchmarks evaluated for any of the pollutants. For lead, we
did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead NAAQS. For HCl
and HF, the average modeled concentration around each facility (i.e.,
the average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling
domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. In addition, each
individual modeled concentration of HCl and HF (i.e., each off-site
data point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks
for all facilities. Based on the results of the environmental risk
screening analysis, we do not expect an adverse environmental effect as
a result of HAP emissions from this source category.
    An assessment of risk from facility-wide actual emissions was
performed to provide context for the source category risks. The maximum
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by the 35 facilities, based on
facility-wide emissions, is 1-in-1 million (estimated for three
facilities), with arsenic, chromium (VI) compounds, and nickel
emissions from fugitive PSH operations driving the risk.

The total estimated cancer incidence from facility-wide emissions is
0.004 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 250 years.
Approximately 30 people are estimated to have cancer risk equal to 1-
in-1 million from facility-wide emissions. The maximum facility-wide
chronic noncancer TOSHI is estimated to be less than 1 (0.4), mainly
driven by emissions of HCl from a facility-wide fugitive area source.
    To examine the potential for any environmental justice issues that
might be associated with the source category, the EPA performed a
demographic analysis, which is an assessment of risk to individual
demographic groups of the populations living within 5 kilometers (km)
and within 50 km of the facilities. The results of the Lime
Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicated that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 12 people to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population indicated that three of the 10 demographic groups (White,
African American and people below the poverty level) that are living
within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceeded the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups. The
methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are presented
in a technical report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of
Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime Manufacturing
Source Category Operations, available in the docket for this action.
    The EPA weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health, and whether more
stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental
effect, by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk
factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce
risk associated with emissions from the source category. We proposed
that the 2004 Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP requirements provide an
ample margin of safety to protect public health. Based on the results
of our environmental risk screening assessment, we also proposed that
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Lime Manufacturing source
category?
    Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety, or adverse
environmental effects have changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are
our responses?
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.
The EPA received comments in support of and opposed to the proposed
risk review and our determination that no revisions were warranted
under CAA section 112(f)(2). Key comments and responses are discussed
below.
    Comment: One commenter stated that there are substantial health
threats from the lime manufacturing industry. The commenter stated that
it is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to do nothing to
reduce any of these emissions or resulting health threats from lime
manufacturing. The commenter stated that the EPA may not lawfully or
rationally find health risks to be ``acceptable'' under CAA section
112(f)(2) when the record shows the opposite, and the EPA has ignored
significant health impacts. The commenter stated that the EPA's
proposal is incomplete and based on analyses that underestimate and
ignore the health risks from the toxic pollution that lime
manufacturing facilities emit into communities.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment. Results of the EPA's
risk assessment for the Lime Manufacturing source category indicate
that both the actual and allowable inhalation cancer risks to the
individual most exposed are less than or equal to 2-in-1 million, well
below the presumptive limit of acceptability of 100-in-1 million. The
actual and allowable inhalation noncancer risks to the individual most
exposed are below a HQ of 1. Based on the conservative nature of the
multipathway screens, we find the Tier 2 screening values (D/F and
arsenic) for cancer and Tier 3 noncancer screening values (cadmium and
mercury) acceptable for the Lime Manufacturing source category. This
determination is based upon the upper-bound cancer screening values of
20 being significantly below an excess cancer risk of 100-in-1 million
and on results from facility-specific assessments for mercury performed
for other source categories. Based upon this experience, we conclude
that if we were to conduct a site-specific risk assessment for the Lime
Manufacturing source category, the risk would result in a HQ value of 1
or lower. For this reason and considering the conservative nature of
the multipathway exposure screening scenario, no further analysis was
performed. In our ample margin of safety analysis, we investigated
available emissions control options that might reduce the risk from the
source category. We considered this information along with all of the
health risks and other health information considered in our
determination of risk acceptability. As part of the proposed ample
margin of safety analysis, we considered activated carbon injection
(ACI) systems, which have not been used or demonstrated on lime kilns,
for controlling D/F and mercury emissions. In both cases, considering
the potential negligible reductions in emissions and the results of our
risk analysis, we concluded that the use of ACI would have little
effect on the source category risks. Due to the already low risk, along
with the substantial costs associated with more stringent standards, we
determined that additional emissions controls for this source category
were not required to provide an ample margin of safety to protect
public health. We have retained this determination in the final rule.
We note that the commenter did not provide detail or supporting
documentation for their comment.
    Comment: A commenter urged the EPA to set stronger standards to
bring further protection to communities from lime manufacturing
facilities. The commenter requested that the EPA consider the people
exposed to these facilities' emissions and affected by its proposed
decision not to strengthen the emission limits. The commenter urged the
EPA to exercise its legal authority to end unacceptable risk for
exposed communities and set the ``ample margin of safety to protect
public health'' and prevent an adverse environmental effect, instead of
attempting to avoid the science and the health threats shown in the
record.
    Response: The risk assessment demonstrated that health risks due to
air emissions from lime manufacturing sources are acceptable and after
considering available control options

and all available risk information, the EPA concluded that the current
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
These conclusions support the EPA's decision to not revise the existing
emission limits. However, we have amended the final rule to make
corrections to certain provisions and have amended provisions to
clarify their intent and these revisions will result in improved
monitoring and compliance with and implementation of the rule. In
addition, the elimination of the SSM exemption may result in lower HAP
emissions.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA underestimated the health
threats to children and from early-life exposure by ignoring increased
risk in childhood and from prenatal exposure.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the risk
assessment for this source category does not consider the groups that
may be most at-risk (e.g., children). When the EPA derives exposure
reference concentrations and unit risk estimates for metal HAP, it also
considers the most sensitive populations identified in the available
literature and, importantly, these are the values used in our risk
assessments.
    We acknowledge that population subgroups, including children, may
have a potential for risk that is greater than the general population
due to greater relative exposure and/or greater susceptibility to the
toxicant. The assessments we undertake to estimate risk account for
this potential vulnerability, for example; the EPA includes exposure
from D/F through ingestion of breast-milk for infants less than 1 year
of age. The EPA also estimates age-specific risks to account for the
higher sensitivity of developing children to mutagens. With respect to
inhalation exposure, the risk assessments we perform implicitly account
for this greater potential for exposure by assuming lifetime exposure,
in which populations are conservatively presumed to be exposed to
airborne concentrations at their residence continuously, 24 hours per
day for a full lifetime, including childhood. With regard to children's
potentially greater susceptibility to noncancer toxicants, the
assessments rely on the EPA's (or comparable) hazard identification and
dose-response values that have been developed to be protective for all
subgroups of the general population, including children.
    For example, a review of the chronic reference value process
concluded that the EPA's reference concentration (RfC) derivation
processes adequately considered potential susceptibility of different
subgroups with specific consideration of children, such that the
resultant RfC values pertain to the full human population, ``including
sensitive subgroups,'' a phrase which is inclusive of childhood.\3\
With respect to cancer, the EPA uses the age-dependent adjustment
factor approach referred to by the commenter but limits the use of
those factors only to carcinogenic pollutants that are known to act via
mutagenic mode of action (MOA), in contrast to the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment approach, which uses them across
the board for all carcinogens regardless of MOA. In lieu of chemical-
specific data on which age or life-stage specific risk estimates or
potencies can be determined, default age dependent adjustment factors
can be applied when assessing cancer risk for early-life exposures to
chemicals that cause cancer through a mutagenic MOA. With regard to
other carcinogenic pollutants for which early-life susceptibility data
are lacking, it is the EPA's long-standing science policy position that
use of the linear low-dose extrapolation approach (without further
adjustment) provides adequate public health conservatism in the absence
of chemical-specific data indicating differential early-life
susceptibility or when the mode of action is not mutagenicity. The
basis for this methodology is provided in the 2005 Supplemental
Guidance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ USEPA, 1994. Methods for derivation of inhalation reference
concentrations and application of inhalation dosimetry. EPA/600/8-
90/066F; https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/rfc_methodology.pdf.
    \4\ USEPA, 2005b. Supplemental guidance for assessing early-life
exposure to carcinogens. EPA/630/R-03003F. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated risks must be considered in the context of the full
set of assumptions used for this risk assessment. Our unit risk
estimates for HAP are considered a plausible upper-bound estimate with
an appropriate age dependent adjustment; actual potency is likely to be
lower and could be as low as zero. Our chronic noncancer reference
values have been derived considering the potential susceptibility of
different subgroups, with specific consideration of children.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA underestimated health
threats to communities exposed to multiple sources by neglecting to add
factors to account for the increased risks caused by such exposure. The
commenter stated that the EPA underestimated the cancer, chronic
noncancer, and acute health risks by using modeling assumptions that
ignore real-world exposures, underestimating risk from chemicals such
as benzene and lead due to the EPA's refusal to follow the best
available science, and neglecting to aggregate cumulative risks.
    Response: The EPA's chronic risk assessment modeling accounts for
cumulative cancer risks from emitted carcinogens and for pollutants
that have similar modes of action or (where this information is absent)
that affect the same target organ, we aggregated the HQs. This process
creates, for each target organ, a TOSHI, defined as the sum of HQs for
individual HAP that affect the same organ or organ system.
    The modeling conducted also includes the effects of multiple
facilities that may be in close proximity when estimating concentration
and risk impacts at each block centroid. When evaluating the risks
associated with a particular source category, we combined the impacts
of all facilities within the same source category and assessed chronic
exposure and risk for all census blocks with at least one resident
(i.e., locations where people may reasonably be assumed to reside
rather than receptor points at the fenceline of a facility). The MIR
considers the combined impacts of all sources in the category that may
be in close proximity. This approach is similar for those facilities
within the source category that have an associated or cumulative impact
on neighboring lakes as it relates to assessing multi-pathway impacts
for each of the PB-HAP. Background risks or contributions to risk from
sources outside the source category under review could be one of the
relevant factors considered in the ample margin of safety
determination, along with cost and economic factors, technological
feasibility, and other factors. Background risks and contributions to
risk from sources outside the facilities under review were not
considered in the ample margin of safety determination for this source
category, mainly because of the significant uncertainties associated
with emissions estimates for such sources. Our approach here is
consistent with the approach we took regarding this issue in the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) RTR (71 FR 76603, December 21, 2006),
which the Court upheld in the face of claims that the EPA had not
adequately considered background (NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir.
2008)).
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has ignored all
multipathway cancer and noncancer chronic health risks that result when
persistent or bioaccumulative pollutants emitted by lime manufacturing
facilities fall into the Great Lakes, bays, rivers, and other large
waterbodies. The commenter

stated that by excluding all impacts from deposition in these
waterbodies, the EPA ignored both health threats and ecological
threats, and violated its legal obligation to assess health and
environmental risk and reduce these hazards as the statute directs.
    Response: Very large lakes and bays (i.e., those larger than
100,000 acres) are not considered because their large volumes
significantly dilute air deposition from point sources. Such large
lakes, including the Great Lakes, the Great Salt Lake, Lake Okeechobee,
Lake Pontchartrain, Lake Champlain, Green Bay, and Galveston Bay also
dilute contaminants in the vast biomass of fish in the large aquatic
food webs. Contaminants derived from emissions to air by a point source
would be distributed among populations of millions of fish resulting in
negligible increases in fish tissue concentrations attributable to the
point source. Also, very large lakes are rare (only 35 such lakes exist
in the conterminous United States). Moreover, for facilities near large
lakes, there usually are other, smaller lakes that the EPA does
consider for which contaminant dilution would be lower, and, therefore,
for which human health and ecological risks would be higher. Thus, the
EPA does model exposure via fish consumption for populations that are
near large lakes in a manner that generally will be more health
protective than modeling the very large lake. The EPA also does not
model lakes adjacent or connected to a river or saltwater body
(estuaries and rivers) or bays; these waterbodies are likely to have
high outflow with limited chemical retention. Less retention time for
these types of waterbodies result in significantly lower media
concentrations when compared to lakes.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for
the risk review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. In the proposed
rule, we proposed that the risks from the Lime Manufacturing source
category are acceptable, the current standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are
not necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. For the
reasons explained in the proposal and in our responses to public
comments and pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2), we are finalizing our
risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the Lime
Manufacturing source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), the EPA conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies that would necessitate
revision to the existing emission standards for the Lime Manufacturing
source category. No cost-effective developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies were identified in our technology
review to necessitate revisions to the PM or opacity standards, which
are both used as a surrogate for HAP metals, standards. More
information concerning our technology review is in the memorandum
titled Technology Review for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category,
which is in the docket for this action, and in the preamble to the
proposed rule (84 FR 48726).
2. How did the technology review change for the Lime Manufacturing
source category?
    The technology review has not changed since proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what
are our responses?
    The EPA received comments in support of the proposed determination
from the technology review that no revisions were necessary under CAA
section 112(d)(6). We also received comments asserting that the
technology review was inadequate for a variety of reasons, primarily
because of failure to consider control technologies for unregulated HAP
emissions.
    Comment: A commenter stated the EPA does not discuss or perform any
review under CAA section 112(d)(6) for all emitted HAP. The commenter
noted that the EPA failed to complete a technology review for HCl,
mercury, D/F, and organic HAP. The commenter stated that the EPA cannot
determine whether developments in pollution control make it
``necessary'' to revise the emission standards without determining what
developments have occurred for these HAP. The commenter stated that the
fact that these HAP are emitted from the source category requires the
EPA to evaluate them pursuant the technology review.
    Response: Section 112(d)(6) of the CAA requires the EPA to ``review
and revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies), emission standards
promulgated under this section . . . .'' The EPA reads CAA section
112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the Agency to review the
original emission standards already promulgated and to revise those
standards as necessary, taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies. Under this reading, section
112(d)(6) of the CAA does not impose upon the Agency any obligation to
promulgate new emission standards or expand the scope of an existing
regulation.\5\ Accordingly, we disagree with the commenter that CAA
section 112(d)(6) requires a technology review for HCl, mercury, D/F,
and organic HAP. The EPA notes that we have completed our statutory
requirements under CAA section 112(d)(6) in reference to the
promulgated standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On April 21, 2020, as the Agency was preparing the final
rule for signature, a decision was issued in LEAN v. EPA, 955 F. 3d.
1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020) in which the Court held that the EPA has an
obligation to set standards for unregulated pollutants as part of
technology reviews under CAA section 112(d)(6). At the time of
signature, the mandate in that case had not been issued and the EPA
is continuing to evaluate the decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any new MACT standards would not be established pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6), but instead would be established under CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) or CAA section 112(h). Establishing emissions
standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or 112(h) involves a
different analytical approach than reviewing emissions standards under
CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Comment: One commenter stated that there are multiple HAP emitted
from the Lime Manufacturing source category that have no numeric
emission standards, including HCl, organic HAP (e.g., formaldehyde,
styrene), mercury, and D/F. The commenter stated that CAA section
112(d) requires limits for each HAP that a source category emits and
that CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and revise its
existing emission standards ``as necessary.'' The commenter stated that
when the EPA reviewed the Lime Manufacturing source category and found
that they lack emission limits for emitted HAP, it is necessary under
CAA section 112(d)(6) to revise the standard (i.e., set limits for
these HAP). The commenter noted that the EPA's failure to set emission
limits for these HAP causes public suffering from uncontrolled exposure
to these HAP.
    The commenter cited prior court rulings that found that the Agency
has a ``clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each
listed HAP.'' [National Lime Ass'n, 233 F.3d

625, 634 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883
(D.C. Cir. 2007)] The commenter cited prior rulemakings where the EPA
has acknowledged this issue and has subsequently set emission limits
for pollutants without standards.
    The commenter noted that the Lime Manufacturing Plants RTR clearly
demonstrates that these pollutants are emitted from the source
category, but that the EPA has not acknowledged its obligation to set
limits on these uncontrolled HAP and has not explained why it is not
``necessary'' to revise the existing standards to set limits for these
HAP. The commenter stated that the EPA has emissions data from at least
some sources, and it must complete its obligation to set a limit for
these HAP.
    The commenter stated that it is unlawful and arbitrary for the EPA
not to set limits for these HAP in this rulemaking. The commenter
stated that if the EPA does not do this, it will fail to complete the
review and revision rulemaking as CAA section 112(d)(6) requires, will
violate the Court's order in California Communities Against Toxics v.
Pruitt, 241 F. Supp. 3d 199 (D.C. 2017), and will also issue a final
rule that is unlawful and inadequate.
    Response: CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the EPA to review and
revise, as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies), emission standards promulgated
under this section. We do not read section CAA section 112(d)(6) as
supporting the commenter's assertion that the EPA must establish new
standards for unregulated emission points or pollutants as part of a
technology review of the existing standards (but see footnote 5). The
EPA reads CAA section 112(d)(6) as a limited provision requiring the
Agency to, at least every 8 years, review the emission standards
already promulgated in the NESHAP and to revise those standards as
necessary taking into account developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies. The EPA does not read CAA section 112(d)(6) as
directing the Agency, as part of or in conjunction with the mandatory
8-year technology review, to develop new emission standards to address
HAP or emission points for which standards were not previously
promulgated.
    When the EPA established standards for previously unregulated
emissions, we did not establish those initial standards pursuant to CAA
section 112(d)(6) but instead established the standards under one of
the provisions that govern initial standard setting--CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) or, if the prerequisites are met, CAA sections
112(d)(4) or 112(h). Establishing emissions standards under these
provisions of the CAA involves a different analytical approach from
reviewing emissions standards under CAA section 112(d)(6).
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology
review?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's technology
review and determined that no changes to the review are needed. For the
reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that no cost-
effective developments in practices, processes, or control technologies
were identified in our technology review to necessitate revisions to
the standards. More information concerning our technology review can be
found in the memorandum titled Technology Review for the Lime
Manufacturing Source Category, which is in the docket for this action.
Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we are finalizing our
technology review as proposed.

C. SSM for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category

1. What did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed amendments to the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP
to remove and revise provisions related to SSM that are not consistent
with the requirement that the standards apply at all times or that are
unnecessary or redundant in the absence of an SSM exemption. More
information concerning the elimination of SSM provisions is in the
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 48708, September 16, 2019).
2. How did the SSM provisions change from proposal for the Lime
Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA is finalizing the SSM provisions with the following changes
from the proposal:
     Replacing the proposed startup work practice standards for
kilns and coolers equipped with a FF or ESP with opacity emission
standards.
     Replacing the proposed startup work practice standards for
kilns and coolers equipped with a wet scrubber with a requirement to
meet standards applicable during normal operation.
     Revising the definition of ``Startup'' to add ``on-
specification'' prior to ``lime product'' and to add an alternate
ending to startup.
     Adding testing requirements for determining when lime
product is deemed on-specification.
    With respect to the revisions to the proposed startup standards,
the EPA is finalizing standards for startup that differ from what we
proposed based on a re-evaluation of the need for work practice
standards. The EPA proposed work practice standards for kilns equipped
with wet scrubbers, FFs, and ESPs. However, the final rule requires
kilns and coolers that are equipped with ESPs or FFs to meet numerical
opacity limits and kilns and coolers equipped with wet scrubbers to
meet the scrubbing liquid flow rate requirements that apply during
normal operations. The EPA's determination in the proposed rule (84 FR
48727) that work practice standards were appropriate was based on a
finding that the application of measurement methodology for PM
emissions was impracticable because the test methods required for
compliance are to be conducted under steady-state conditions which are
difficult to achieve during startup. In addition to the reference test
method (EPA Method 5), we considered PM emission monitors, which also
requires steady-state conditions. However, based on comments claiming
that the EPA has not shown a lack of practicable measurement
methodology for startup periods, we reconsidered the issue. The 2004
final NESHAP rule established opacity as an emission standard limiting
PM emissions. We are not aware of factors that would prevent the
monitoring of opacity during startup periods.
    For kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs, 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA
allows compliance with opacity standards to ensure PM is controlled
between stack tests.\6\ In this rule, for periods of startup, the EPA
is requiring kilns equipped with FFs or ESPs to meet the 15-percent
opacity limit that applies during normal operation averaged over the
period of startup. The EPA has determined that a longer averaging time
is appropriate for startup periods since we are aware that emissions
during startup can be variable in light of the sequence of events that

occur during startup of a kiln. Thus, the longer averaging time being
finalized is to account for this variability that could result in
spikes in opacity during the startup period. During startup, even the
best performing units are constantly making adjustments in terms of
fuel flow and combustion air flow rate. Every increase in fuel rate or
feed rate requires the source to adjust air flow to the proper level.
Each adjustment can lead to a spike in opacity. Accounting for such
variability in setting emission standards is consistent with the CAA
case law. See, United States Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 632
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (``We have held, see Mossville Envtl. Action Now v.
EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and recently reaffirmed, see
NACWA, 734 F.3d at 1133-34, that the EPA can consider this variability
when setting MACT floors.''). As proposed, the EPA is not establishing
different shutdown standards for kilns equipped wth FFs or wet
scrubbers and, thus, such kilns must meet otherwise applicable limits
during shutdown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The EPA notes that under 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA stack
testing is not permitted during startup and shutdown. As proposed,
this rule replaces the reference in Table 9 to 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1)
(which prohibits performance testing during periods of startup and
shutdown) with identical language at 40 CFR 63.7112(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. What key comments did we receive on the SSM provisions, and what are
our responses?
    The EPA received 16 comments related to our proposed revisions to
the SSM provisions. Commenters generally supported the proposed removal
of the SSM exemptions but disagreed with either the proposing of work
practice standards for the startup period or certain aspects of the
proposed work practice standards. We evaluated the comments and
determined that changes to the proposed SSM provisions are warranted. A
summary of these comments and our responses are located in the
memorandum titled Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Lime
Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and Technology Review, which is in
the docket for this action.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the EPA's work practice standard
requiring all kilns to start and operate on ``clean fuels'' until the
kiln reaches a temperature of 1200 degrees Fahrenheit is unnecessary,
not based on information in the administrative record, inconsistent
with processes required to safely and properly commence kiln operation,
and, for some kilns, is impractical based on the realities of operating
kilns in the lime industry.
    The commenters stated that for operational and safety reasons,
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) cannot be started immediately to
effectively remove PM upon startup of the kiln. Therefore, the clean
fuel work practice for startup makes sense for ESP-equipped kilns. The
commenters confirmed that the limited number of ESP-equipped kilns in
the lime industry can be started on natural gas or other listed clean
fuels.
    The commenters stated that for baghouse and scrubber-equipped
kilns, clean fuel startup is not needed because the air pollution
control device is operating at the beginning of startup and begins
removing PM immediately. The commenters stated that since stone feed
rates are low during startup, total PM emissions exiting the kiln will
be less than during normal operation, and the operating air pollution
control devices will ensure that PM will be removed. The commenters
also noted that clean fuels are not available at all lime manufacturing
locations (for example, natural gas is not readily available in areas
far from gas pipelines).
    The commenters stated that the proposed requirement to meet the
opacity and scrubber liquid flow rate operating limits is sufficient to
show that emissions are not excessive for baghouse and scrubber-
equipped kilns. The commenters recommended that the EPA delete the
requirement for baghouse and scrubber-equipped kilns to start on clean
fuels but add a requirement that the air pollution control devices for
such kilns be in operation at the beginning of startup.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the requirement to start and operate
on ``clean fuels'' is unnecessary for kilns equipped with FFs or wet
scrubbers because the control devices can be operational at the time of
startup. Therefore, we are not finalizing the work practice requirement
to startup on clean fuel for kilns equipped for FFs or wet scrubbers.
As explained above in section C.2, we are instead requiring kilns
equipped with FFs, ESPs or wet scrubbers to comply with standards as
described in section C.2 above and in Table 2 during startup and
shutdown.
    Comment: The proposed definition of the end of startup was
``Startup ends 60 minutes after the lime kiln generates lime product.''
Commenters stated that the term ``lime product'' is not specific enough
to provide certainty to regulated sources. The commenters highlighted
that a kiln will start to discharge off-spec product almost
simultaneously with the lighting of the primary fuel. The commenters
stated that it can take up to 12 hours to produce quality grade lime
following first discharge from a rotary kiln, and even longer for a
vertical kiln.
    The commenters recommended that the end of startup should be
related to levels of stone feed, because the applicable PM emissions
limits are based on tons of stone feed. The commenters recommended that
the definition of the end of startup should be revised to read
``Startup ends 60 minutes after stone feed reaches planned production
quantities.''
    Response: The EPA appreciates the commenters feedback regarding the
definition of the end of startup. Commenters provided further
information (Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015-0015, SSM Letter
from Industry (1/31/2019)) regarding what constitutes on-specification
lime product and the time when on-specification lime product is
produced. Commenters note that on-specification lime is produced when
steady-state conditions are achieved. The EPA determined that the
definition of the end of startup is the time when steady-state
conditions are achieved such that PM testing could be conducted with
the reference test method. We have determined that these steady-state
conditions are achieved either when first producing on-specification
lime product or 12 hours following first discharge from the kiln,
whichever is earlier.
    We are finalizing the definition of the end of startup to provide
more clarity, as follows: ``Startup ends when the lime kiln generates
on-specification lime product or 12 hours following first discharge
from the lime kiln, whichever is earlier.'' We are also finalizing a
new definition for on-specification lime product, as follows: ``On-
specification lime product means lime product that has been
sufficiently calcined to meet end use requirements.''
    Finally, we are finalizing a requirement for facilities to test
hourly during startup to determine when lime product meets the
definition of on-specification, to maintain records of the time the
kiln first began producing on-specification lime product, and the time
of first discharge from the lime kiln.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the best way to address malfunction
events would be for plants to develop site-specific protocols for
malfunctions that would be embodied in a rule required plan, and that
compliance with those protocols would constitute compliance with an
applicable work practice standard. The commenters suggested retaining
the requirement for a SSM plan that would contain these protocols, or
requiring them in the plant's operations, maintenance, and monitoring
(OM&M) plan.
    The commenters stated that this would allow work practices for
malfunctions to be tailored to the specific equipment and operating
conditions present at each plant, and

the presence of the protocols in a required plan would allow for the
EPA review and enforcement. The commenters stated that the EPA's
consideration of work practice standards for specified malfunctions (84
FR 48728) would be better than not setting separate standards at all,
but that this approach would omit some malfunctions, and will not have
the same degree of ``fit'' as tailored OM&M protocols would have.
    The commenters stated that adopting work practice standards for
specified malfunctions (as opposed to tailored OM&M protocols) could
also cause confusion as to what malfunctions are covered by the
regulation. The commenters summarized the definition of malfunction in
40 CFR 63.2. The commenters noted that not all operational malfunctions
of kilns and their associated air pollution control and monitoring
equipment constitute ``malfunctions'' under the definition in section
63.2, because some problems do not have the potential to cause
emissions limitations to be exceeded.
    The commenters stated that local engineering expertise may be
required to determine whether particular operational malfunctions are
``malfunctions'' under the statute and rule and that this is a reason
why tailored procedures in OM&M plans would be preferable to work
practice standards for specified malfunctions.
    Response: The EPA does not agree with the commenter that
malfunctions should be addressed through source-specific enforceable
``plans'' that would contain these protocols for malfunctions.
Establishing source-specific protocols for malfunctions that met MACT
stringency requirements would be difficult, if not impossible, given
the myriad different types of malfunctions that can occur. See, U.S.
Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 608 (2016)(``Any possible standard is
likely to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'')
    The EPA is also not finalizing specific work practice standards for
specific malfunction events, although we may do so if available
information supports separate MACT-compliant standards in the future.
In this case, we received comment and information on potential work
practice standards during periods of malfunction, however we do not
have information to support that the suggested standards met the MACT
stringency requirements. The EPA also agrees that finalizing specific
work practice standards for malfunctions has the potential to omit
certain malfunction events and cause confusion regarding what
malfunctions are covered by the regulation, as it would be difficult to
capture all malfunction events.
    Comment: A commenter stated support for the EPA's proposed removal
of the existing exemption of emissions during SSM periods. The
commenter stated that the CAA requires that standards are continuous
and applicable at all times and referenced various court rulings
upholding this determination.
    The commenter stated that the EPA may not finalize the new SSM
exemptions it has proposed. The commenter stated that the EPA has not
cited and can cite no statutory language granting it authority or
``discretion'' to set such standards, because it has none. The
commenter stated that the EPA has only the discretion provided by the
Act and delegated by Congress. [Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, 862 F.3d
1, 9 (DC Cir. 2017)] The commenter stated that relevant statutory
language denies, rather than gives, the EPA authority to set
malfunction-based standards or exemptions. See 42 U.S.C. 7412(d), (h),
and 7602(k).
    Response: The EPA disagrees that it has proposed new SSM exemptions
or that the EPA does not have authority to establish different
standards for periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. In fact, the
EPA proposed to (1) eliminate the SSM exemption, (2) require compliance
with the existing standard for periods of malfunction and (3) require
compliance with standards during periods of startup and shutdown. The
commenter does not explain and cannot support the general claim that
the statutory language denies the EPA authority to set different
standards for startup or shutdown. The 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.
EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008) (``2008 Sierra Club decision''), held
that emissions standards or limitations must be continuous in nature
and that ``some'' section 112 standards apply continuously. The DC
Circuit reiterated this principle in Sierra Club v EPA, 884 F. 3d.
1185, 1203 (DC Cir. 2018) (``2018 Sierra Club decision'') explaining
that the 2014 Sierra Club decision ``held that, whenever HAP sources
are in operation, including during startup and shutdown, the EPA must
continuously subject them to either numeric limits or Section 112(h)-
compliant work practice standards.'' Consistent with the 2008 Sierra
Club decision, and taking into account startup and shutdown periods,
the EPA proposed work practice standards for these periods based on a
determination under CAA section 112(h) that for kilns and coolers it
was not feasible to prescribe or enforce a numeric standard during
these periods of startup and shutdown. See 84 FR 48727. As discussed in
the preamble to the final rule, based on public comments, we have made
changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup and
shutdown.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA does not have statutory
authority to create work practice requirements for startups. The
commenter summarized the requirements and applicable definitions of CAA
sections 7412(h)(1) and (h)(2) and stated that the EPA has not
satisfied either of the statute's definitions of ``not feasible to
prescribe or enforce and emission standard.'' The commenter stated that
promulgating work practice requirements instead of numeric emission
limitations for periods of startup would violate the statute. The
commenter stated that CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) covers situations where
``the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of
sources is not practicable due to technological and economic
limitations.'' The commenter stated that startup and shutdown are
``events,'' not a ``particular class of source.'' The commenter stated
that section 112(h)(2)(B) cannot be used as justification for work
practice standards in lieu of numeric emission limits.
    Response: As discussed above, based on public comments, we have
made changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup
and shutdown. The EPA's final rule does not establish work practice
standards for period of startup and shutdown, so the comment is no
longer relevant. However, the EPA notes that it does not agree with the
commenter that section 112(h)(2)(B) can be invoked to justify a work
practice standard only for categories or subcategories of sources under
section 112(h)(2)(B), not for periods of operation. Section 112(h)
provides that the EPA may ``promulgate a design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof'' in lieu of
a numeric emission standard if the Administrator determines that it is
not feasible, in his/her judgment, to prescribe or enforce a numeric
standard. More specifically, section 112(h)(2) states it is infeasible
to prescribe or enforce an emission standard if the application of
measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not
practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Nothing in
this section limits the Agency's discretion to establish work practice
standards to particular sources, subcategories of sources, or source
categories, or to certain periods of operations if, in the

Administrator's judgment, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a
numeric emission standard during those periods. The reference to ``a
particular class of sources'' in section 112(h)(2) does not limit the
EPA's authority to determine, for a category or subcategory of sources,
that it is infeasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard for
those sources during certain identifiable time periods, such as startup
and shutdown.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA has proposed to excuse
sources from using their ESPs during startup. The commenter stated that
the EPA argues that industry stakeholders have claimed it may be unsafe
to run ESPs during these times. The commenter stated that CAA section
112(h)(2)(B) does not authorize the EPA to set work practice
requirements based on the Agency's views about the safety implications
of running a particular control device.
    The commenter stated that nothing in the CAA or existing rule
requires lime kilns to control their PM emissions with ESPs. The
commenter stated that if lime kiln owners and operators believe it is
unsafe to run ESPs during startup and shutdown, the appropriate
solution is for them to deploy other control devices (e.g., FFs), not
to excuse them from meeting numeric emission limits during these
events.
    Response: As discussed above, based on public comments, we have
made changes from the proposal to the standards for periods of startup
and shutdown. The EPA's final rule does not establish work practice
standards for period of startup and shutdown so the comment is no
longer relevant.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the SSM provisions?
    We evaluated all comments on the EPA's proposed amendments to the
SSM provisions. For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we
determined that it is appropriate to remove and revise provisions
related to SSM that are not consistent with the requirement that the
standards apply at all times or that are unnecessary or redundant in
the absence of an SSM exemption. Therefore, we are finalizing our
approach for the SSM provisions as proposed with changes as detailed in
section IV.C.2 of this preamble. More information concerning the
amendments we are finalizing for SSM is discussed above and in the
preamble to the proposed rule (84 FR 48727-48730, September 16, 2019).

D. Electronic Reporting Requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Source
Category

1. What did we proposed for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed that owners or operators of lime manufacturing
plants submit electronic copies of required performance test reports,
performance evaluation reports, and semiannual compliance reports
through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. More information concerning our
proposal on electronic reporting requirements can be found in the
proposed rule (84 FR 48708).
2. How did the electronic reporting provisions change for the Lime
Manufacturing source category?
    Since proposal, the electronic reporting provisions have not
changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the electronic reporting
provisions, and what are our responses?
    The EPA received comments related to the proposed electronic
reporting provisions. The commenters generally supported the proposed
provisions but disagreed with certain aspects of the provisions.
    Comment: Commenters provided feedback on the electronic semiannual
compliance report (spreadsheet template), per the EPA's request (84 FR
48730). The commenters noted the following:
     In tab ``CMS Deviation Summary,'' column D (Total Source
Operating Time (hours)), and column F (Total Duration of CMS Downtime
as a percentage of Total Emissions Unit Operating Time) are both
protected so it is not possible for an operator to input this data.
This should be corrected.
     The example source operating time is shown as 6,240 hours.
For semi-annual reporting, the maximum possible hours are 4,380.

The commenters stated that the EPA should compare the final template
reporting form to the final rule to ensure each reporting element is
required in the rule and that the template reporting form instructions
are accurate and detailed enough to ensure consistent reporting across
the industry.
    Response: The EPA will check the final reporting template to be
sure each reporting requirement marked as a required element is
required by the final rule and will also provide adequate instructions
for filling out the reporting template. The EPA will also check to be
sure columns D (operating time) and F are unprotected in order that
manual inputs can be entered by the user. The example operating time
for semi-annual reporting will be updated to 4,380 hours.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the EPA may not create an
unlawful exemption or extension for compliance reporting as it proposes
to do for web outages or so-called ``force majeure events,'' as this
violates the requirement for standards to be continuous and would allow
unreported exceedances to go unchecked, indefinitely.
    Response: The commenter asserts that the brief case-by-case
extension of report submittal deadlines is an unlawful exemption from
compliance with the emissions standards. This is not the case. The EPA
notes that there is no exemption to reporting, much less an exemption
from compliance with the emission standards, only a method for
requesting an extension of the reporting deadline. Reporters are
required to justify their request and identify a reporting date. While
no new fixed duration deadline is set, the regulation does require that
the report be submitted electronically as soon as possible after the
CEDRI outage is resolved or after the force majeure event occurs. The
Administrator may even request that the report be sent in hardcopy
until electronic reporting can be resumed.
    The Administrator has full discretion to accept or reject the claim
of a CEDRI system outage or force majeure. As such, an extension is not
automatic and is agreed to on an individual basis by the Administrator.
If the Administrator determines that a facility has not acted in good
faith to reasonably report in a timely manner, the Administrator can
reject the claim and find that the failure to report timely is a
deviation from the regulation.
    The EPA also disagrees that the ability to request a reporting
extension violates the requirement for emissions standards to be
continuous. While reporting is an important mechanism for the EPA and
air agencies to assess whether owners or operators are in compliance
with emissions standards, reporting obligations are separate from
(i.e., in addition to) requirements that an owner or operator be in
compliance with an emissions standard. The EPA has discretion to
establish reporting schedules, and also discretion to allow a mechanism
for extension of those schedules on a case-by-case basis.
    Additional comments and our specific responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document titled Summary of Public Comments
and Responses for Lime Manufacturing Plants Residual Risk and
Technology Review, which is available in the docket for this action.

4. What is the rational for our final approach for the electronic
reporting provisions?
    The EPA evaluated all of the comments on the EPA's proposed
amendments to the electronic reporting provisions. For the reasons
explained in the proposed rule (84 FR 48708), we have determined the
electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this final rulemaking
will:
     Increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports;
     be consistent with current trends in data availability and
transparency;
     further assist in the protection of public health and the
environment;
     improve compliance by facilitating the ability of
regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with requirements;
     facilitate the ability of delegated state, local, tribal,
and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and determine
compliance; and
     ultimately reduce burden on regulated facilities,
delegated air agencies, and the EPA.
    Electronic reporting also eliminates paper-based, manual processes,
thereby saving time and resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating
redundancies, minimizing data reporting errors, and providing data
quickly and accurately to the affected facilities, air agencies, the
EPA, and the public. Moreover, electronic reporting is consistent with
the EPA's plan \7\ to implement Executive Order 13563 and is in keeping
with the EPA's Agency-wide policy \8\ developed in response to the
White House's Digital Government Strategy.\9\ For more information on
the benefits of electronic reporting, see the memorandum titled
Electronic Reporting Requirements for New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Rules, available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The EPA's Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews,
August 2011. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/documentD=EPA-HQ-OA-2011-0156-0154.
    \8\ E-Reporting Policy Statement for EPA Regulations, September
2013. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/epa-ereporting-policy-statement-2013-09-30.pdf.
    \9\ Digital Government: Building a 21st Century Platform to
Better Serve the American People, May 2012. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/egov/digital-government/digitalgovernment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. IBR

    In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA will
incorporate by reference the following documents described in the
amendments to 40 CFR 63.14:
     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR
approved for table 5 to subpart AAAAA. This method is approved as an
alternative to EPA Method 3B of appendix A to part 60.
     ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for 40 CFR
63.7142(a) and 63.7142(b). This method is approved as an alternative to
EPA Method 320 of appendix A to part 63.
     ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for 40 CFR 63.7142(a) and 40 CFR 63.7142(b). This method is approved as
an alternative to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to part 63.
     ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7142(a).
This method is approved as an alternative to EPA Method 321 of appendix
A to part 63.
     ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for 40 CFR 63.7142(b). This method is approved as an
alternative to EPA Method 18 of appendix A to part 60.
     EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September
1997, IBR approved for 40 CFR 63.7113(d). This method was added in
accordance with final revisions to the bag leak detection requirements
under 40 CFR 63.7113(d).
    The ANSI/ASME document is available from the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) at http://www.asme.org; by mail at Two Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990; or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
ASTM documents are available from the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) at https://www.astm.org; by mail at l00 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, the EPA
document generally available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov/ and at the EPA Docket Center (see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble for more information).

F. Technical and Editorial Changes for the Lime Manufacturing Source
Category

1. What did we propose for the Lime Manufacturing source category?
    The EPA proposed the following technical and editorial changes:
     Revising the monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 63.7113 to
the provision that triboelectric bag leak detection system must be
installed, calibrated, operated, and maintained according to EPA-454/R-
98-015. Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance;
     revising 40 CFR 63.7142 to add an alternative test method
to EPA Method 320;
     revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM
Method D6735-01;
     revising 40 CFR.7142 to add the latest version of ASTM
Method D6420-99; and
     revising Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA, to add
alternative compliance option.
2. How did the technical and editorial changes change for the Lime
Manufacturing source category?
    Since proposal, the technical and editorial changes have not
changed.
3. What key comments did we received on the technical and editorial
changes, and what are our responses?
    No comments were received on the technical and editorial changes
detailed above.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technical and
editorial changes?
    Because no comments were received on the technical and editorial
changes that the EPA proposed, we determined that these changes should
be finalized as proposed.

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

A. What are the affected facilities?

    There are currently 35 lime manufacturing facilities operating in
the United States that are subject to the Lime Manufacturing Plants
NESHAP. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA,

affected source is the lime kiln and its associated cooler, and the PSH
operation system located at a major source of HAP emissions. A new or
reconstructed affected source is a source that commenced construction
after December 20, 2002, or meets the definition of reconstruction and
commenced reconstruction after December 20, 2002.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of total HAP are
estimated to be approximately 2,320 tpy. This represents a reduction in
HAP emissions of about 240 tpy due to the current (2004) Lime
Manufacturing Plants NESHAP. The final amendments will require all
affected sources subject to the emission standards in the Lime
Manufacturing Plants NESHAP to operate without the SSM exemption. We
were unable to quantify the specific emissions reduction associated
with eliminating the SSM exemption. However, eliminating the SSM
exemption will reduce emissions by requiring facilities to meet
emissions standards during SSM periods.
    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. The EPA
expects no secondary air emissions impacts or energy impacts from this
rulemaking.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The 35 lime manufacturing plants that would be subject to the final
amendments would incur minimal net costs to meet revised recordkeeping
and reporting requirements and the standards for periods of startup and
shutdown. Nationwide costs associated with the final requirements are
estimated to be $15,271. The EPA believes that the lime manufacturing
plants which are subject to the NESHAP can meet the final requirements
with minimal additional capital or operational costs. Each facility
will experience costs to read and understand the rule amendments. Costs
associated with the elimination of the SSM exemption were estimated as
part of the reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for re-
evaluating previously developed SSM record systems. Costs associated
with the requirement to electronically submit notifications and semi-
annual compliance reports using CEDRI were estimated as part of the
reporting and recordkeeping costs and include time for becoming
familiar with CEDRI and the reporting template for semi-annual
compliance reports.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    Economic impact analyses focus on changes in market prices and
output levels. If changes in market prices and output levels in the
primary markets are significant enough, impacts on other markets may
also be examined. Both the magnitude of costs needed to comply with a
final rule and the distribution of these costs among affected
facilities can have a role in determining how the market will change in
response to a final rule. The total costs associated with reviewing the
final rule, meeting the revised recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and complying with the revised final standards are
estimated to be $15,271. This is an estimated cost of $266 to $2,925
per facility, depending on the number of lime kilns operated and the
type of controls installed. These costs are not expected to result in a
significant market impact, regardless of whether they are passed on to
the purchaser or absorbed by the firms. Based on the costs associated
with the elimination of the SSM exemption and the costs associated with
the requirement to electronically submit compliance reports, we do not
anticipate any significant economic impacts from these final
amendments.

E. What are the benefits?

    Although the EPA is unable to quantify reductions in HAP emissions
as a result of the final amendments, we believe that the action
improves the rule. Specifically, the final amendments remove SSM
exemptions such that standards apply at all times. Additionally, the
final amendments requiring electronic submittal of initial
notifications, initial startup reports, annual compliance
certifications, deviation reports, and performance test results will
increase the usefulness of the data, is in keeping with current trends
of data availability, will further assist in the protection of public
health and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden
on the regulated community.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in the Risk and
Technology Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations
Living Near Lime Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is
available in the docket for this action. The results of the Lime
Manufacturing source category demographic analysis indicated that
emissions from the source category expose approximately 12 people to a
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and no people to a chronic
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1. The percentages of the at-risk
population indicate that three of the 10 demographic groups (White,
African American and people below the poverty level) that are living
within 50 km of facilities in the source category exceed the
corresponding national percentage for the same demographic groups.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    The EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
This action's health and risk assessments are contained in the Residual
Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

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

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

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared

has been assigned EPA ICR number 2072.09. You can find a copy of the
ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    We are finalizing changes to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements for the Lime Manufacturing Plants NESHAP in the form of
eliminating the SSM reporting and SSM plan requirements and requiring
electronic submittal of all compliance reports (including performance
test reports). Any information submitted to the Agency for which a
claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the
Agency policies set forth in title 40, chapter 1, part 2, subpart B--
Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR
36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43
FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of lime
manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are located at, or
are part of, major sources of HAP emissions, unless the lime
manufacturing plant is located at a kraft pulp mill, soda pulp mill,
sulfite pulp mill, sugar beet manufacturing plant, or only processes
sludge containing calcium carbonate from water softening processes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart AAAAA).
    Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next 3 years,
approximately 36 existing major sources will be subject to these
standards. It is also estimated that one additional respondent will
become subject to the emission standards over the 3-year period.
    Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item.
    Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next 3 years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is
estimated to be 9,690 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $1,810,000 (per year), of which $15,271 (first year)
is for this rule, and the rest is for other costs related to continued
compliance with the NESHAP including $684,000 in annualized capital and
operation and maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. This action only eliminates
the SSM exemption, revises other SSM related requirements, and adds
electronic reporting. None of the changes will impact the small
entities. The rule removes the SSM exemption and establishes emission
standard for startup and shutdown. Based on the controls used at the
small entities, they will not be impacted by the alternate emission
standards. Thus, this action will not impose any requirements on small
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. While this action creates an enforceable duty on the
private sector, the cost does not exceed $100 million or more.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA does not know of any lime manufacturing
facilities owned or operated by Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
sections III and IV of the proposal preamble (84 FR 48708, September
16, 2019) and further documented in the risk report titled Residual
Risk Assessment for the Lime Manufacturing Source Category in Support
of the 2019 Risk and Technology Review Proposed Rule, which is
available in the docket for this action.

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

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

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 (2010), ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual
portion only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from
stationary combustion sources. This standard may be obtained from
https://www.asme.org or from the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) at Three Park Avenue, New York, New York 10016-5990.
    The EPA has decided to use ASTM D6348-03(2010) and ASTM D6348-12e1,
``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Executive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as alternatives to using EPA
Method 320 under certain conditions and incorporate these alternatives
by reference. ASTM D6348-03(2010) was previously determined equivalent
to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of
ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results
from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder, but still
lacks the caveats we placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. The

voluntary consensus standard (VCS), ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
(FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320
at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to
the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the conditions
that must be met are defined in 40 CFR 63.7142(a)(2). This field test
method employs an extractive sampling system to direct stationary
source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the identification and
quantification of gaseous compounds. The ASTM D6348-03(2010) and ASTM
D6348-12el standards were developed and adopted by the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ATSM).
    The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009),
``Standard Test Method for Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and
Fluorides from Mineral Calcining Exhaust Sources Impinger Method,'' as
an alternative to EPA Method 321 provided that the provisions in 40 CFR
63.7142(a)(4) are followed. The EPA used ASTM D6735-01 for the
determination of HCl in EPA Methods 26, 26A, and 321 from mineral
calcining exhaust sources. This method will measure the gaseous HCl and
other gaseous chlorides and fluorides that pass through a PM filter.
The ASTM D6735-01 standard was developed and adopted by the ASTM.
    The EPA has decided to use VCS ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010),
``Test Method for Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct
Interface Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' as an alternative to
EPA Method 18 only when the target compounds are all known, and the
target compounds are all listed in ASTM D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420
should not be used for methane and ethane because atomic mass is less
than 35. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total volatile
organic compound method. This field method determines the mass
concentration of volatile organic HAP.
    The ASTM standards may be obtained from http://www.astm.org or from
the ASTM at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania 19428-2959.
    The EPA has decided to use EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection
Guidance, September 1997 as guidance for how a triboelectric bag leak
detection system must be installed, calibrated, operated, and
maintained. This document includes FF and monitoring system
descriptions; guidance on monitor selection, installation, set up,
adjustment, and operation; and quality assurance procedures. This
document may be obtained from http://www.epa.gov or from the EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    While the EPA has identified another 10 VCS as being potentially
applicable to this proposed rule, we have decided not to use these VCS
in this rulemaking. The use of these VCS would not be practical due to
lack of equivalency, documentation, validation date, and other import
technical and policy considerations. See the memorandum titled
Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for NESHAP: Lime Manufacturing
Residual Risk and Technology Review, in the docket for this proposed
rule for the reasons for these determinations.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General
Provisions, a source may apply to the 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 or any amendments.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in section IV.B of
the proposal preamble and the technical report, Risk and Technology
Review Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Lime
Manufacturing Source Category Operations, which is available in the
docket for this action.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Lime manufacturing, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR
part 63 as follows:

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

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(1), (h)(85),
(86), (93), (100), and (n)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b),
63.997(e), 63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE,
63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a),
63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 3 to
subpart YYYY, 63.7822(b), 63.7824(e), 63.7825(b), 63.9307(c),
63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g),
63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart
AAAAA, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart JJJJJ, table 4 to
subpart KKKKK, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, table 1 to subpart
ZZZZZ, and table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (85) ASTM D6348-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface
Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1
through A8, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.1571(a), 63.4751(i), 63.4752(e), 63.4766(b), 63.7142(a) and (b),
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK,
tables 1, 2, and 5 to subpart UUUUU and appendix B to subpart UUUUU.
    (86) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for

Sec. Sec.  63.997(e), 63.1571(a), 63.2354(b), table 5 to subpart EEEE,
table 4 to subpart UUUU, and 63.7142(a) and (b).
* * * * *
    (93) ASTM D6420-99 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry, Approved October 1, 2010, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.670(j), Table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.7142(b),
and appendix A to this part: Method 325B.
* * * * *
    (100) ASTM D6735-01 (Reapproved 2009), Standard Test Method for
Measurement of Gaseous Chlorides and Fluorides from Mineral Calcining
Exhaust Sources--Impinger Method, IBR approved for Sec.  63.7142(b),
tables 4 and 5 to subpart JJJJJ, and tables 4 and 6 to subpart KKKKK.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (3) EPA-454/R-98-015, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS), Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, September 1997, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  63.548(e), 63.864(e), 63.7113(d), 63.7525(j),
63.7831(f), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and 63.11224(f).
* * * * *

Subpart AAAAA--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.7083 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and
(b) and by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.7083   When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) * * *
    (1) If you start up your affected source before January 5, 2004,
you must comply with the emission limitations no later than January 5,
2004, and you must have completed all applicable performance tests no
later than July 5, 2004, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)
of this section.
    (2) If you start up your affected source after January 5, 2004,