[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72580-72585]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-30844]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL-7416-9]
RIN 2060-AJ57
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action today on certain amendments to
the national emission standards for the portland cement manufacturing
industry, which were originally promulgated on June 14, 1999 under the
authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The amendments
make improvements to the implementation of the emission standards,
primarily in the areas of applicability, testing, and monitoring where
issues and questions were raised since promulgation of the rule.
On April 5, 2002, the EPA promulgated amendments to the national
emission standards for the portland cement manufacturing industry as a
direct final rule with a parallel proposal. On July 2, 2002, we
withdrew certain provisions in the direct final rule in order to assess
adverse comments. This action promulgates the amendments previously
withdrawn based on the parallel proposal published on April 5, 2002.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 6, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Docket A-92-53, containing supporting information used in
developing these amendments, is available for public inspection and
copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except for
Federal holidays) at the following address: U.S. EPA, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center (6102T), 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460 in room B-108, or by calling (202) 260-7548. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Wood, P.E., Minerals and
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (C504-05),
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5446,
facsimile number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all of the
information considered by EPA in the development of these final rule
amendments. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify
and locate documents so they can effectively participate in the
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated rules and
their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the record in
the case of judicial review. The docket number for this rulemaking is
A-92-53.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of this action will also be available through the
WWW. Following signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN at
EPA's web site provides information and technology exchange in various
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial
review of these final rule amendments is available only by filing a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit by February 4, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the
CAA, only an objection to these final rule amendments that was raised
with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be
raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA, the requirements established by these final rule amendments may
not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings
brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements.
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those that manufacture portland cement. Regulated categories and
entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category NAICS SIC Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry................................... 32731 3241 Owners or operators of portland
cement manufacturing plants.
Tribal associations........................ 32731 3241 Owners or operators of portland
cement associations manufacturing
plants.
Federal agencies........................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None.
[[Page 72581]]
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that the EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility, company, business organization, etc., is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.1340 of the rule. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading this
preamble to these final rule amendments.
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
A. Applicability of Rule to Crushers Following Raw Material
Storage
B. Operating Limits for Kilns and In-Line Kiln/Raw Mills with
Alkali Bypasses
C. Performance Test Requirements When Operating Conditions
Change
D. Conveying System Transfer Points
E. Visible Emission Monitoring At Highest Load or Capacity
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Background
On June 14, 1999 (64 FR 31898), we published the final rule
entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry'' (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LLL). The American Portland Cement Alliance (APCA) petitioned
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
for review of the final rule under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA. (See
42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1).) The APCA and the EPA have agreed to the terms of
a settlement agreement and its implementation.
Consistent with the settlement agreement, we promulgated amendments
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) on April 5, 2002. We issued the amendments as a direct final
rule (67 FR 16614) with a parallel proposal (67 FR 16625) which we
would finalize in the event that we received any adverse comments on
the direct final rule. The amendments made specific changes to the
NESHAP, generally relating to applicability, performance testing, and
monitoring.
We received a total of five comment letters on the direct final
rule amendments. Three comment letters were from the APCA, one was from
an individual cement company, and one was from a private citizen. These
commenters mainly requested additional clarification of and corrections
to the final rule amendments. In response to some of the comments we
received, we published a notice containing corrections and
clarifications of two issues arising from explanatory language in the
preamble to the direct final rule amendments (67 FR 44766, July 5,
2002).
Two adverse comments on the direct final rule amendments were
included in the industry comments, and we also received three adverse
comments from the private citizen. Consequently, we withdrew those
amendments for which adverse comments were received (67 FR 44371, July
2, 2002). The amendments withdrawn were Sec. Sec. 63.1340(c),
63.1344(a)(3), 63.1349(e)(3), and 63.1350(a)(4)(v) through (vii),
(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e). In the withdrawal document, we stated
that the adverse comments would be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule published on April 5, 2002. The remaining
amendments not withdrawn became effective July 5, 2002.
After full and careful consideration of the adverse comments, we
are promulgating the proposed amendments with a few minor changes
summarized as follows. In the amendment related to the exemption from
monitoring totally enclosed conveying system transfer points (Sec.
63.1350(a)(4)(v) through (vii)), we now require that the enclosures for
these transfer points be operated and maintained as total enclosures on
a continuing basis, as part of the source's operations and maintenance
plan. In the amendments related to the daily monitoring of certain
affected sources (Sec. 63.1350(c)(2)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e)), we are
dropping the requirement that the monitoring be conducted in accordance
with Sec. 63.7(e).
II. Response to Comments
A. Applicability of Rule to Crushers Following Raw Material Storage
Comment: The proposed amendment to Sec. 63.1340(c) would clarify
that primary and secondary crushers are not subject to the rule
regardless of their location in the production line relative to raw
material storage. One commenter argued that it is inappropriate to
exempt crushers because the final rule explicitly qualified the
applicability of the rule to crushers that follow raw material storage.
Further, the commenter stated that if the present emission limit does
not represent maximum achievable control technology (MACT), EPA must
use available data to set a standard for crushers, or absent this, the
promulgated standard should not be altered. The commenter stated that
the new source performance standard (NSPS) applicability is irrelevant
because it may not represent MACT, and not all sources are subject to
the NSPS.
Response: As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule (63 FR
14194, March 24, 1998), the final rule (64 FR 31900, June 14, 1999),
and the direct final rule amendments that we withdrew (67 FR 16615,
April 5, 2002), we never intended for the rule to cover crushers
(whether located before or after raw material storage). The phrase
``which precedes the raw material storage'' was included inadvertently.
While most crushers are located before raw material storage, a few may
be located after raw material storage. Instead of clarifying that
crushers are not covered by the rule, the existing rule language
erroneously implies that crushers following raw material could be
subject to the rule. Crushers are not included in this source category
and it has never been our intent to include them in the rule. Further,
we disagree that the applicability of the NSPS for the portland cement
manufacturing industry (40 CFR 60, subpart F) is irrelevant. Although
we have some discretion in defining the affected sources covered under
a rule, we typically try to maintain consistency with previous
regulatory history. See CAA section 112(c)(1), which states that EPA
should endeavor in the MACT source listing process to be as consistent
as possible with the categorization and subcategorization scheme used
for issuing NSPS; in this case, EPA is acting consistently with the
source category definition used for establishing NSPS. We are,
therefore, amending the final rule as we proposed to clarify that
primary and secondary crushers are not covered by the final rule
regardless of
[[Page 72582]]
their location relative to raw material storage.
As to the comments regarding the emission limit and MACT for
crushers under this rule, since crushers are not affected sources,
there is no emission limit that applies to crushers.
B. Operating Limits for Kilns and In-Line Kiln/Raw Mills With Alkali
Bypasses
Comment: Section 63.1344 of the final rule establishes operating
limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills. Paragraph (a)(3) of that
section pertains to the operating temperature limit of an in-line kiln/
raw mill equipped with an alkali bypass. The proposed amendment to
Sec. 63.1344(a)(3) would clarify that the operating limit for gas
stream temperature at the inlet to the alkali bypass particulate matter
(PM) control device may be established during a performance test either
with or without the raw mill being in operation. One commenter objected
to this amendment because EPA did not provide test data to support the
assumption that the raw mill status does not affect alkali bypass
emissions.
Response: The EPA does not believe that data are needed to support
the Agency's view that the raw mill operating status does not affect
the alkali bypass gas emissions, because the portion of the exhaust gas
sent through the alkali bypass is directed there before the remaining
exhaust gas reaches the raw mill. Thus, the raw mill operating status
has no effect on levels of dioxin/furan (D/F; the HAP of concern for
this emission point) in the gas stream. In contrast, we believe that
the raw mill operational status could affect D/F emission levels in the
main exhaust gas stream because, unlike alkali bypass emissions, this
gas stream does pass through the raw mill. The rule accounts for these
potential emissions. See paragraphs (1) and (2) of Sec. 63.1344(a).
But there is no reason to think the alkali bypass emissions would be
affected by the raw mill operational status, since, as explained, these
emissions do not pass through the raw mill. The amendment, thus,
appropriately provides additional flexibility to the facility by
allowing the test for D/F emissions from the alkali bypass to be
conducted whether or not the raw mill is operating.
C. Performance Test Requirements When Operating Conditions Change
Comment: Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Sec. 63.1349(e) require a new
performance test if a plant anticipates making a significant
operational change that may adversely affect compliance with an
applicable D/F or PM emission limitation. We proposed to add new
paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) allowing a source to operate under
the planned operational change conditions for a period not to exceed
360 hours, provided that certain conditions are met. Two industry
representatives support the proposed amendment but object to one of the
four conditions that would be required--conducting and completing the
test within the 360-hour period. The commenters argue that the test
requirement should not be automatic because the operator may determine
(after operating for 360 hours) that the operational change is not
appropriate. They stated that portland cement plants should be allowed
to file a notification stating that the operational change will not be
implemented.
Response: The additional time allowed under the amendments allows
the operator to fine-tune process operations under the new conditions
(e.g., a PM control device inlet temperature higher than the current
temperature operating limit) and to conduct the test(s). One purpose of
requiring that the performance test be conducted is to avoid sources
claiming a waiver from their temperature operating limit under the
guise of an operational change that they never intend to implement.
Without the performance test requirement, a loophole is created whereby
sources could take advantage of the 360 hours we give them to operate
at a temperature higher than their operating limit any number of times
without demonstrating compliance. Additionally, the change suggested by
the commenters is outside the scope of what was agreed to under the
terms of the settlement agreement. For these reasons, we have decided
to promulgate the amendment as proposed, without the change recommended
by the commenters.
D. Conveying System Transfer Points
Comment: Section 63.1350(a) of the existing rule establishes
informational requirements for the operation and maintenance (O&M)
plan. Paragraph (a)(4) of this section deals with procedures for
visible emissions monitoring. The proposed amendments would add new
paragraphs (a)(4)(v) through (vii) that exempt conveying system
transfer points from visible emission monitoring if the transfer points
are totally enclosed. One commenter stated that the proposed monitoring
exemption must include specific criteria and methods to establish
permanent total enclosure status.
Response: As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments and
in background language of the settlement agreement (but not in the rule
text), ``the enclosures for these transfer points shall be operated and
maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in accordance with
the facility operations and maintenance plan.'' We agree with the
commenter, and because this issue is already discussed in the
settlement agreement, we have added this statement to the rule text.
E. Visible Emission Monitoring At Highest Load or Capacity
Comment: Paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (e) of Sec. 63.1350
of the existing rule require daily visible emission observations for
certain affected sources when the emission unit is operating at the
highest load or capacity level reasonably expected to occur. The
proposed amendments would revise these paragraphs to require that
performance tests be conducted under representative conditions in
accordance with Sec. 63.7(e). Two industry representatives believe the
reference to Sec. 63.7(e) is inappropriate and should be removed.
Response: We agree that the reference to Sec. 63.7(e) is
inappropriate because it pertains to performance tests, not monitoring
requirements. We have removed the phase ``in accordance with Sec.
63.7(e)'' from the final rule amendments.
III. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), the EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in
standards that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the
[[Page 72583]]
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that these final rule amendments do not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the
above criteria. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for
review under Executive Order 12866.
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
These final rule amendments do not have federalism implications.
They will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because State and
local governments do not own or operate any sources that would be
subject to the amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to these final rule amendments.
C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' These final rule amendments
do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175,
because they will not have any substantial direct effects on an Indian
tribe, the relationship between the Federal Government and an Indian
tribe, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to these final rule amendments.
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (63 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives.
We interpret Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the regulation. These final rule amendments
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are not an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because they are based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks.
E. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy, Supply, Distribution, or Use
These final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because they are not a significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal
mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA
to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
The EPA has determined that these final rule amendments do not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate,
or the private sector in any 1 year, nor do the amendments
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because they
contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose
obligations upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply
to these amendments.
G. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A portland cement
manufacturing company with less than 750 employees; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3)
[[Page 72584]]
a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C.
Sections 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a
positive effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The
amendments in today's rule make improvements to the emission standards,
primarily by clarifying issues in the areas of applicability, testing,
and monitoring. We have, therefore, concluded that today's final rule
amendments will have no adverse impacts on any small entities and may
relieve burden in some cases.
Although the final rule amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, we worked
with the portland cement industry, including small entities, throughout
the rulemaking process. Meetings were held on a regular basis with
industry representatives in connection with the settlement agreement to
discuss the development of the final rule, exchange information, and
solicit comments on final rule requirements.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in the existing rule were
submitted to and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned OMB control No. 2060-0416. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR
No. 1801.02) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division
(2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460,
by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy
may also be downloaded from the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
Today's action makes clarifying changes to the existing rule and
imposes no new information collection requirements on industry. Because
only clarifying changes are being made, there is no additional burden
on industry as a result of these final rule amendments and the ICR has
not been revised.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; process and maintain information and disclose
and provide information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (such as materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when an Agency does not use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
Because today's action contains no new test methods, sampling
procedures or other technical standards, there is no need to consider
the availability of voluntary consensus standards.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. These final rule
amendments are 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 procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart LLL--[Amended]
2. Section 63.1340 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.1340 Applicability and designation of affected sources.
* * * * *
(c) For portland cement plants with on-site nonmetallic mineral
processing facilities, the first affected source in the sequence of
materials handling operations subject to this subpart is the raw
material storage, which is just prior to the raw mill. Any equipment of
the on-site nonmetallic mineral processing plant which precedes the raw
material storage is not subject to this subpart. In addition, the
primary and secondary crushers of the on-site nonmetallic mineral
processing plant, regardless of whether they precede the raw material
storage, are not subject to this subpart. Furthermore, the first
conveyor transfer point subject to this subpart is the transfer point
associated with the conveyor transferring material from the raw
material storage to the raw mill.
* * * * *
[[Page 72585]]
3. Section 63.1344 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.1344 Operating limits for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills.
(a) * * *
(3) If the in-line kiln/raw mill is equipped with an alkali bypass,
the applicable temperature limit for the alkali bypass specified in
paragraph (b) of this section and established during the performance
test, with or without the raw mill operating, is not exceeded.
* * * * *
4. Section 63.1349 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) In preparation for and while conducting a performance test
required in paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a source may operate
under the planned operational change conditions for a period not to
exceed 360 hours, provided that the conditions in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section are met. The source shall submit
temperature and other monitoring data that are recorded during the
pretest operations.
(i) The source must provide the Administrator written notice at
least 60 days prior to undertaking an operational change that may
adversely affect compliance with an applicable standard under this
subpart, or as soon as practicable where 60 days advance notice is not
feasible. Notice provided under this paragraph shall include a
description of the planned change, the emissions standards that may be
affected by the change, and a schedule for completion of the
performance test required under paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
including when the planned operational change period would begin.
(ii) The performance test results must be documented in a test
report according to paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) A test plan must be made available to the Administrator prior
to testing, if requested.
(iv) The performance test must be conducted, and it must be
completed within 360 hours after the planned operational change period
begins.
* * * * *
5. Section 63.1350 is amended by:
a. Adding paragraphs (a)(4)(v) through (vii);
b. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(i);
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(i); and
d. Revising paragraph (e) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(v) The requirement to conduct Method 22 visible emissions
monitoring under this paragraph shall not apply to any totally enclosed
conveying system transfer point, regardless of the location of the
transfer point. ``Totally enclosed conveying system transfer point''
shall mean a conveying system transfer point that is enclosed on all
sides, top, and bottom. The enclosures for these transfer points shall
be operated and maintained as total enclosures on a continuing basis in
accordance with the facility operations and maintenance plan.
(vi) If any partially enclosed or unenclosed conveying system
transfer point is located in a building, the owner or operator of the
portland cement plant shall have the option to conduct a Method 22
visible emissions monitoring test according to the requirements of
paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section for each such
conveying system transfer point located within the building, or for the
building itself, according to paragraph (a)(4)(vii) of this section.
(vii) If visible emissions from a building are monitored, the
requirements of paragraphs (a)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section apply
to the monitoring of the building, and you must also test visible
emissions from each side, roof and vent of the building for at least 1
minute. The test must be conducted under normal operating conditions.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in
accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The
duration of the Method 9 test shall be at least 30 minutes each day.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Perform daily visual opacity observations of each stack in
accordance with the procedures of Method 9 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 9 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The
duration of the Method 9 test shall be at least 30 minutes each day.
* * * * *
(e) The owner or operator of a raw mill or finish mill shall
monitor opacity by conducting daily visual emissions observations of
the mill sweep and air separator PMCD of these affected sources in
accordance with the procedures of Method 22 of appendix A to part 60 of
this chapter. The Method 22 test shall be conducted while the affected
source is operating at the representative performance conditions. The
duration of the Method 22 test shall be 6 minutes. If visible emissions
are observed during any Method 22 visible emissions test, the owner or
operator must:
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-30844 Filed 12-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P