Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 131 July 9, 2014 

Part V 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Standards of Performance for Grain Elevators; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39242 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706; FRL–9912–76– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AP06 

Standards of Performance for Grain 

Elevators 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing amendments 

to the Standards of Performance for 

Grain Elevators as a result of the 8-year 

review of the new source performance 

standards required by the Clean Air Act. 

We are proposing to clarify certain 

provisions in the existing subpart DD. 

The EPA is also proposing a new 

subpart DDa for grain elevators, which 

would apply to affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014 and 

includes the proposed clarifications for 

subpart DD and several new provisions. 

In response to Executive Order 13563, 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review, the EPA conducted an analysis 

of subpart DD. In considering the 

directives of the Executive Order, the 

EPA conducted several analyses to 

determine the effectiveness of subpart 

DD, to determine whether subpart DD is 

still relevant, and to determine whether 

subpart DD is excessively burdensome. 

Based on the results of these analyses, 

the EPA concluded that subpart DD is 

still effective, relevant and not 

excessively burdensome. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 7, 2014. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

comments on the information collection 

provisions are best assured of having 

full effect if the Office of Management 

and Budget receives a copy of your 

comments on or before August 8, 2014. 

Public Hearing. The EPA will hold a 

public hearing on this proposed rule if 

requested. Requests for a hearing must 

be made by July 24, 2014. Contact Ms. 

Virginia Hunt via email (hunt.virginia@

epa.gov) or phone (919–541–0832) by 

July 24, 2014 to request a public 

hearing. If a hearing is requested, the 

EPA will announce the details, 

including specific dates, times, 

addresses and contact information for 

the hearing, in a separate Federal 

Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0706, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov: Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Email: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov, 

Include docket ID Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0706 in the subject line of 

the message. 

Fax: (202) 566–9744, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for 

EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West 

Building, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI to 

only the mail or hand/courier delivery 

address listed above, attention: Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means the EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about the EPA’s public docket, visit the 

EPA Docket Center homepage at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

Docket. The docket number for the 

proposed amendments to the grain 

elevator new source performance 

standards (40 CFR part 60, subparts DD 

and DDa) is Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0706. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. The EPA docket 

facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information concerning the proposed 

amendments, contact Mr. Bill Schrock, 

Natural Resources Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division (E143– 

03), Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711; telephone number (919) 

541–5032; fax number (919) 541–3470; 

email address: schrock.bill@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

World Wide Web. In addition to being 

available in the docket, an electronic 

copy of the proposed amendments is 

available on the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site. Following 

signature, the EPA will post a copy of 

the amendments at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/atw/eparules.html. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39243 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BACT Best available control technology 

BDT Best demonstrated technology 

BLDS Bag leak detection systems 

BSER Best system of emission reduction 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential business information 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

EJ Environmental justice 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

FSA Farm Service Agency 

g/dscm Grams per dry standard cubic meter 

gr/dscf Grains per dry standard cubic foot 

gr/dscfm Grains per dry standard cubic foot 

per minute 

HAP Hazardous air pollutants 

ICR Information Collection Request 

kg Kilogram 

LAER Lowest achievable emission rate 

mg Milligram 

mm Millimeter 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NSPS New source performance standard 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OECA Office of Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

RACT Reasonably available control 

technology 

RBLC RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SISNOSE Significant Economic Impact on a 

Substantial Number of Small Entities 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TSF Temporary storage facility 

tpy Tons per year 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

VCS Voluntary consensus standards 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Amendments 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments? 

III. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for these 

proposed revisions? 

B. What is the regulatory history for grain 

elevators? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. What source category is being regulated? 

B. What pollutants are emitted from these 

sources? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments 

A. How did the EPA conduct the BSER 

analysis? 

B. How did the EPA evaluate changes to 

the methodology for determining 

applicability of the grain elevator NSPS? 

C. How did the EPA evaluate the 

compliance requirements in the grain 

elevator NSPS? 

D. How did the EPA evaluate additional 

changes for the grain elevator NSPS? 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts of These 

Proposed Standards 

A. What are the impacts for subpart DDa? 

B. What are the secondary impacts for 

subpart DDa? 

C. What are the economic impacts for 

subpart DDa? 

VII. Other Considerations 

Executive Order 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

A redline version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the proposed 

changes in this action is available in the 

docket for this action (Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706) 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

New source performance standards 

implement CAA section 111(b) and are 

issued for categories of sources that EPA 

has listed because they cause, or 

contribute significantly to, air pollution, 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health or welfare. The 

primary purpose of the NSPS is to attain 

and maintain ambient air quality by 

ensuring application of the best system 

of emission reduction (BSER) that has 

been adequately demonstrated, taking 

into consideration the cost of achieving 

such emission reductions, and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements. 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires 

the EPA to review and, if appropriate, 

revise existing NSPS at least every 8 

years. The NSPS for grain elevators (40 

CFR part 60, subpart DD) were 

promulgated in 1978 and last reviewed 

in 1984. As part of the review, the EPA 

is required to consider what degree of 

emission limitation is achievable 

through the application of the BSER, 

which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. The EPA also 

considers the emission limitations and 

reductions that have been achieved in 

practice. 

In addition to conducting the NSPS 

review, the EPA is evaluating the startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) 

provisions in the rule in light of the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), which held that the SSM 

exemption in the General Provisions in 

40 CFR part 63 violated the CAA’s 

requirement that some standards apply 

continuously. In the Sierra Club case, 

the D.C. Circuit vacated the SSM 

exemption provisions in the General 

Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 for nonopacity and opacity standards. The 

court explained that under section 

302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards 

or limitations must be continuous in 

nature. The court then held that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standards apply continuously. In light 

of the court’s reasoning, all rule 

provisions must be carefully examined 

to determine whether they provide for 

periods when no emission standard 

applies. The EPA believes that even 

though the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA 

was considering a challenge to a section 

112 NESHAP standard, the Court’s 

reasoning applies equally to CAA 

section 111 (NSPS) and section 129 

rules. The EPA’s general approach to 

SSM periods has been used consistently 

in CAA section 111, section 112 and 

section 129 rulemaking actions, since 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Sierra 

Club. See, e.g., New Source Performance 

Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants, 

Final Rule, 77 FR 48433 (August 14, 

2012); New Source Performance 

Standards for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources; Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units, Final 

rule, 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011); Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector: New Source 

Performance Standards and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Reviews; Final rules, 77 FR 

49490 (August 16, 2012). 

To address the NSPS review, SSM 

exemptions and other changes, the EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39244 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

is proposing a new subpart DDa for 

grain elevators, which would apply to 

affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014. The 

affected facilities at grain elevators 

under the existing subpart DD and the 

proposed subpart DDa are each new, 

modified or reconstructed truck 

unloading station, truck loading station, 

barge and ship unloading station, barge 

and ship loading station, railcar loading 

station, railcar unloading station, grain 

dryer and all grain handling operations. 

The EPA is also proposing amendments 

to subpart DD that will apply to 

facilities subject to DD to clarify certain 

definitions and provisions. The EPA is 

also proposing testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for subpart DDa that are in 

some ways different from what is 

required under subpart DD. Where 

feasible, the EPA considered ways to 

reduce the testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting burden, 

while making the proposed 

requirements less ambiguous and more 

straightforward for determining 

compliance. The proposed subpart DDa 

requirements reflect what wellcontrolled sources are doing within the 

grain elevator industry since the last 

review in 1984. 

This rulemaking also responds to 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, 

which directs federal agencies to ‘‘. . . 

review existing rules that may be 

outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 

excessively burdensome, and to modify, 

streamline, expand, or repeal them in 

accordance with what has been 

learned.’’ It also responds to a petition 

submitted by a coalition representing 

the grain elevator industry that, citing 

the Executive Order, requests the EPA to 

review and repeal subpart DD. In 

considering the directives of the 

Executive Order, the EPA conducted 

several analyses aimed at determining 

the effectiveness of subpart DD, 

determining whether subpart DD is still 

relevant and determining whether 

subpart DD is excessively burdensome. 

Based on the results of these analyses, 

the EPA concluded that subpart DD is 

still effective, relevant and not 

excessively burdensome but we are 

proposing some amendments to clarify 

certain provisions. 

B. Summary of Major Amendments 

Based on the results of the NSPS 

review, the EPA is proposing the 

following: 

1. Proposed Clarifications to Subpart DD 

We are proposing amendments to 

subpart DD to clarify the definition of 

grain unloading station and grain 

loading station, and to clarify enclosure 

requirements for barge or ship 

unloading operations. 

2. Proposed New Requirements 

Contained in Subpart DDa 

We are proposing a new subpart DDa 

that will include the standards of 

performance and other provisions in 

subpart DD, as clarified in this proposal 

which reflect current industry 

operations, as well as the following 

additional new standards and 

provisions based on our review of 

available information: 

• An additional method for 

determining applicability that includes 

the storage capacity of temporary 

storage facilities (TSFs). 

• Ten percent opacity standards for 

barge or ship unloading stations not 

using an unloading leg and for column 

dryers using a wire screen. 

• Particulate Matter (PM) and opacity 

standards for affected facilities 

associated with TSFs consistent with 

those associated with permanent storage 

units. 

• Particulate Matter performance tests 

conducted every 60 months, opacity 

tests conducted annually, and weekly 

visual inspections for affected facilities, 

and visual inspections of fabric filters 

every 6 months. 

• Records for the new applicability 

calculation method, excess emissions 

events, fabric filter inspections, opacity 

tests, weekly visual inspections and PM 

tests, and the type of grain processed 

during performance tests. 

• Requirement to submit electronic 

copies of performance tests reports to 

the EPA using the EPA’s electronic 

reporting tool (ERT). 

• New definitions for ‘‘permanent 

storage capacity,’’ ‘‘temporary storage 

facility,’’ ‘‘wire screen column dryer,’’ 

and ‘‘en-masse drag conveyor.’’ 

We are also proposing that the PM 

standards are applicable at all times. 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Table 1 summarizes the costs and 

benefits of this action. See section VI of 

this preamble for further discussion. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED SUBPART DDA FOR NEW, MODIFIED AND

RECONSTRUCTED AFFECTED SOURCES AT GRAIN ELEVATORS

Requirement Capital cost 

($ thousand) 

Annual cost 

($ thousand/yr) a

Emission 

reductions 

(tons PM10/yr) 

Net benefit 

PM control ............................................................................................ 1,087 350 31 N/A b

Emissions testing and monitoring/reporting and recordkeeping ......... 0 849 0 N/Ab

Total nationwide ........................................................................... 1,087 1,199 31 N/A b

a Reporting and recordkeeping costs are in the third year following promulgation. PM control, testing and monitoring costs are in the fifth year 

after promulgation. For the third year after promulgation, the associated PM capital cost is $888,000, and annual cost (including annualized PM 

control cost and emissions testing and monitoring) is $757,000. b Under Executive Order 12866, this rulemaking is not an ‘‘economically significant regulatory action’’ because it is not likely to have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this rulemaking or a 

benefits analysis. The proposed requirements of the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Grain Elevators (Subpart DDa) are anticipated to reduce emissions by 31 tons of PM10 each year starting in 2018. While we expect that these PM10 emissions reductions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health effects associated with exposure to air pollution resulting from these emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing these emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are no benefits associated with 

these emission reductions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39245 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this proposed rule include 

those listed in Table 2 of this preamble. 

TABLE 2—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICSa

code Examples of potentially regulated entities 

Industry ......................................................... 49313 .. Grain elevators (storage). 

Industry ......................................................... 424510 Grain elevators (merchants, wholesalers). 

a North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by the proposed amendments. 

To determine whether your facility 

would be regulated by the proposed 

amendments, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.300 and 40 CFR 60.300a. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of the proposed 

amendments to a particular entity, 

contact the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments? 

Submitting CBI. Do not submit 

information containing CBI to the EPA 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information on a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comments that includes information 

claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy 

of the comments that does not contain 

the information claimed as CBI for 

inclusion in the public docket. If you 

submit a CD–ROM or disk that does not 

contain CBI, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM clearly that it does not 

contain CBI. Information not marked as 

CBI will be included in the public 

docket and the EPA’s electronic public 

docket without prior notice. Information 

marked as CBI will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or 

deliver information identified as CBI 

only to the following address: Roberto 

Morales, OAQPS Document Control 

Officer (C404–02), OAQPS, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711, Attention Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

If you have any questions about CBI 

or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

III. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

these proposed revisions? 

NSPS implement CAA section 111, 

which requires that each NSPS reflect 

the degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of 

the BSER which (taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reductions, any nonair quality 

health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

referred to as BSER and has been 

referred to in the past as ‘‘best 

demonstrated technology’’ or BDT. In 

assessing whether a standard is 

achievable, the EPA must account for 

routine operating variability associated 

with performance of the system on 

whose performance the standard is 

based. See National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 

627 F. 2d 416, 431–33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

We are also proposing in this 

rulemaking that existing affected 

facilities that are modified or 

reconstructed would be subject to this 

proposed rule. Under CAA section 

111(a)(4), ‘‘modification’’ means any 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a stationary 

source which increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted by such source 

or which results in the emission of any 

air pollutant not previously emitted. 

Changes to an existing facility that do 

not result in an increase in the emission 

rate are not considered modifications 

(40 CFR 60.14). 

Rebuilt emission units would become 

subject to the proposed standards under 

the reconstruction provisions, regardless 

of changes in emission rate. 

Reconstruction means the replacement 

of components of an existing facility 

such that: (1) the fixed capital cost of 

the new components exceeds 50 percent 

of the fixed capital cost that would be 

required to construct a comparable 

entirely new facility; and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable standards 

(40 CFR 60.15). 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to periodically review 

and revise the standards of performance, 

as necessary, to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. The 

NSPS are directly enforceable federal 

regulations issued for categories of 

sources which cause, or contribute 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. Since 1970, the 

NSPS have been successful in achieving 

long-term emissions reductions in 

numerous industries by assuring that 

cost-effective controls are installed on 

new, reconstructed or modified sources. 

B. What is the regulatory history for 

grain elevators? 

In 1978, the EPA promulgated 

‘‘Standards of Performance for Grain 

Elevators’’ (40 CFR part 60, subpart DD) 

(August 3, 1978, 43 FR 34347). Since 

then, we have conducted one review of 

the standards, which promulgated 

minor revisions to clarify certain 

provisions (March 27, 1984, 49 FR 

11750). 

The current subpart DD applies to 

affected facilities at any grain storage 

elevators or grain terminal elevators 

storing corn, wheat, sorghum, rice, rye, 

oats, barley and soybeans which are 

constructed, reconstructed or modified 

after August 3, 1978. On August 7, 1977 

Congress amended the Clean Air Act 

with a provision that exempts country 

grain elevators with less than 2.5 

million bushels of grain storage capacity 

from standards developed under section 

111 of the Act. A ‘‘grain storage 

elevator’’ means any grain elevator 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39246 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

located at any wheat flour mill, wet corn 

mill, dry corn mill (human 

consumption), rice mill or soybean oil 

extraction plant with permanent storage 

capacity of at least one million bushels. 

40 CFR 60.301(f). A ‘‘grain terminal 

elevator’’ means any grain elevator with 

permanent storage capacity over 2.5 

million bushels, except those located at 

animal food manufacturers, pet food 

manufacturers, cereal manufacturers, 

breweries and livestock feedlots. 40 CFR 

60.301(c). A ‘‘grain elevator’’ means any 

plant or installation at which grain is 

unloaded, handled, cleaned, dried, 

stored or loaded. 40 CFR 60.301(b). 

‘‘Permanent storage capacity’’ means 

grain storage capacity which is inside a 

building, bin or silo. 40 CFR 60.301(d). 

The affected facilities at grain 

elevators are each truck unloading 

station, truck loading station, barge and 

ship unloading station, barge and ship 

loading station, railcar loading station, 

railcar unloading station, grain dryer 

and all grain handling operations. 40 

CFR 60.300. 

The current NSPS, as amended under 

the 1984 review, include the following 

emission limits and work practice 

standards: 

Type of emissions Affected facility Type of standard Requirement (40 CFR 60.302) 

Process emissions ...... Truck unloading station, truck loading station, barge and ship unloading station, 

barge and ship loading station, railcar 

loading station, railcar unloading station, 

and all grain handling operations.

PM limit .......................................... 0.01 gr/dscf. 

Opacity limit .................................... 0%. 

Grain dryer ................................................... Opacity limit and equipment specification.0% opacity for column dryers 

equipped with column plate perforations exceeding 0.094 

inches, and rack dryers 

equipped with screen filter 

coarser than 50 mesh. 

Fugitive ........................ Truck loading ................................................ Opacity limit .................................... 10% 

Truck unloading, railcar loading, railcar unloading.Opacity limit .................................... 5%. 

Barge/ship loading ........................................ Opacity limit .................................... 20%. 

Barge/ship unloading .................................... Equipment specification ................. Marine leg enclosed from top to

bottom of leg, w/ventilation flow 

rate of both leg and receiving 

hopper of 40 ft3 per bushel of 

grain unloaded. 

Initial compliance with the PM and 

opacity emission limits in the current 

NSPS (subpart DD) is demonstrated by 

conducting initial performance tests. 

Subpart DD does not contain any 

continuous compliance requirements. 

IV. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

A. What source category is being 

regulated? 

Today’s proposed standards would 

apply to affected facilities at any grain 

storage elevators or grain terminal 

elevators storing corn, wheat, sorghum, 

rice, rye, oats, barley and soybeans 

which are constructed, reconstructed or 

modified after July 9, 2014. We are also 

proposing clarifications that would 

apply to affected facilities at any grain 

storage elevator or grain terminal 

elevator storing corn, wheat, sorghum, 

rice, rye, oats, barley and soybeans 

which are constructed, reconstructed or 

modified after August 3, 1978. The 

affected facilities at grain elevators are 

each truck unloading station, truck 

loading station, barge and ship 

unloading station, barge and ship 

loading station, railcar loading station, 

railcar unloading station, grain dryer 

and all grain handling operations. 

Neither the proposed standards nor the 

clarifications to the existing standards 

are changing the rules for currently 

affected facilities, however the proposed 

standards will cover a new type of barge 

unloader and column dryer not 

contemplated by the existing standards. 

B. What pollutants are emitted from 

these sources? 

The primary pollutant emitted and 

the only pollutant regulated by the grain 

elevator NSPS is PM. Particle pollution 

can cause serious health problems. The 

size of particles is directly linked to 

their potential for causing health 

problems. EPA’s national and regional 

rules to reduce emissions of pollutants 

that form particle pollution will help 

state and local governments meet the 

Agency’s national air quality standards. 

Particulate matter is emitted from grain 

as it is conveyed from one affected 

facility to another, unloaded or loaded 

onto transport vessels and during the 

drying process. Opacity is regulated to 

ensure proper operation and 

maintenance of the PM controls and to 

control fugitive emissions. 

The PM concentration limits are 

based on filterable PM measured by EPA 

Method 5. Filterable PM consists of 

those particles directly emitted by a 

source as a solid or liquid at the stack 

(or similar release conditions) and 

captured on the filter of a stack test 

train. A fraction of the PM emitted from 

grain elevator affected facilities is PM 

with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The 

EPA is not proposing separate standards 

for PM2.5 in this action because the 

available emissions test data for PM2.5

are limited and not adequate for setting 

standards. 

The PM concentration limits in 

today’s proposed NSPS review are based 

on filterable PM measured by EPA 

Method 5 because the majority of PM 

emissions data available are Method 5 

data. Emissions of condensable PM, 

which is PM that is not directly emitted 

but is formed in the atmosphere, are 

measured using EPA Method 202. These 

emissions can be added as the ‘‘back 

half’’ to a Method 5 sampling train. 

However, the EPA is not proposing 

separate standards for condensable PM 

because available emissions test data for 

condensable PM are limited and not 

adequate for setting standards. 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

The EPA is proposing the following 

actions regarding the NSPS for grain 

elevators. As summarized in section 

IV.C.1 of this preamble, we are 

proposing clarifications to specific 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39247 

requirements in subpart DD. As 

summarized in section IV.C.2 of this 

preamble, we are also proposing a new 

subpart DDa which would only be 

applicable to affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014. 

1. Clarifications to Subpart DD 

We are proposing clarifications to 

three provisions in subpart DD. These 

proposed clarifications are summarized 

in Table 3 of this preamble, which 

presents both the current provision in 

subpart DD and a description of the 

proposed clarifications. EPA’s rationale 

for these proposed changes is provided 

in section V.D. of this preamble. These 

proposed revisions are intended to keep 

the meaning and intent of the 

definitions as originally promulgated 

while making sure the definitions 

encompass the changes in the industry 

since the last review of subpart DD in 

1984. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART DD FOR AFFECTED FACILITIES THAT HAVE COMMENCED

CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION, OR RECONSTRUCTION AFTER AUGUST 3, 1978 

Current subpart DD provision (subpart DD citation) 

Proposed revision to subpart DD for affected facilities that 

have commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction 

after August 3, 1978 

‘‘Grain unloading station’’ is defined to be that portion of a grain elevator where the grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, barge or ship 

to a receiving hopper (§ 60.301(j)).

‘‘Grain unloading station’’ is that portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, barge or ship to a receiving 

hopper or to the grain handling equipment that connects the unloading station to the rest of the grain elevator, including all of the equipment, support structures and associated dust control equipment and 

aspiration systems connected to or required to operate the grain unloading station. 

‘‘Grain loading station’’ is defined to mean that portion of a grain elevator where the grain is transferred from the elevator to a truck, railcar, 

barge or ship.( § 60.301(k)).

‘‘Grain loading station’’ is that portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from the elevator to a truck, railcar, barge or 

ship, including all of the equipment, support structures and associated dust control equipment and aspiration systems connected to or 

required to operate the grain loading station. 

For affected barge or ship unloading stations, the unloading leg is required to be enclosed from the top (including the receiving hopper) to 

the center line of the bottom pulley and ventilation to a control device 

is required to be maintained on both sides of the leg and the grain 

receiving hopper. (§ 60.302 (d)(1)).

For affected barge or ship unloading stations, the requirements in 

§ 60.302 (d)(1) remain the same except that a new provision is proposed to be added to clarify that where aspiration of the casing provides dust control at the boot of the conveyor and a receiving hopper 

is not used, the unloading leg is required to be enclosed from the top 

to the center line of the bottom pulley, and ventilation to a control device is required to be maintained on both sides of the leg. 

The proposed clarifications are 

applicable to all affected facilities that 

commenced construction, modification 

or reconstruction after August 3, 1978. 

2. Proposal of Subpart DDa 

We are proposing a new subpart DDa 

for affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014. 

Subpart DDa includes the standards in 

subpart DD, including the clarifications 

discussed in Table 3 of this preamble for 

subpart DD, and new requirements for 

affected facilities. The proposed new 

requirements are summarized below. 

EPA’s rationale for these proposed 

changes is provided in sections V.A 

through V.D. of this preamble. The new 

requirements include a new definition 

of permanent storage capacity that 

accounts for storage capacity from TSFs; 

other new definitions; emission 

standards for two new subcategories; 

and testing, monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. We are 

also proposing a requirement in subpart 

DDa that all emission standards in 

subpart DDa apply at all times, 

including periods of SSM. 

Definitions 

We are proposing the following 

definitions: 

‘‘Permanent storage capacity’’ is 

proposed to be the grain storage 

capacity calculated using proposed 

Equations 1 or 2, as applicable. This 

proposed definition revises the method 

used to determine applicability by 

providing a new method to calculate 

‘‘permanent storage capacity’’ using TSF 

capacity and the grain storage capacity 

of buildings, other types of bins and 

silos. Equation 1 is proposed for grain 

elevators where the grain storage 

capacity and historical grain throughput 

for all their grain storage buildings, bins 

and silos are known. 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Tp = Maximum annual throughput of grain 

for all buildings, bins (excluding TSFs) 

and silos used to store grain (bushels per 

year) over the previous 5 years. 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all TSFs used 

to store grain (bushels). 

Equation 2 is proposed for grain 

elevators where the grain storage 

capacity and historical grain throughput 

for all grain storage buildings, bins or 

silos are not known. Equation 2 would 

be used at grain elevators that had at 

least one storage building, bin, or silo 

that did not exist prior to the date of 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction of the affected facility. 

Ctp = Cp + (0.34 * Ct) (Eq. 2) 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all TSFs used 

to store grain (bushels). 

0.34 = Default ratio of permanent grain 

storage capacity to annual throughput 

‘‘Grain unloading station’’ is proposed 

as specified in Table 3 of this preamble. 

‘‘Grain loading station’’ is proposed as 

specified in Table 3 of this preamble. 

‘‘Temporary storage facility’’ or ‘‘TSF’’ 

is proposed to be defined as any grain 

storage bin that: (1) Uses an asphalt, 

concrete or other improved base 

material; (2) uses rigid, self-supporting 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09JY14.005</GPH>
39248 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

sidewalls; (3) provides aeration; and (4) 

provides a covering or tarp. 

‘‘Wire screen column dryer’’ is 

proposed to be defined to be any 

equipment used to reduce the moisture 

content of grain in which the grain 

flows from the top to the bottom in one 

or more continuous packed columns 

between two woven wire screens or 

between a combination of perforated 

metal sheets and wire screens. 

‘‘En-masse drag conveyor’’ is 

proposed to mean a device that uses 

paddles or flights mounted on a chain 

to remove grain from a barge or ship. 

‘‘Portable equipment’’ is proposed to 

mean equipment that includes (but is 

not limited to) portable augers, portable 

conveyors and front-end loaders that are 

not fixed at any one spot and can be 

moved around the site. 

PM Standards 

We are proposing the following 

actions regarding the PM standards: 

• Maintain the subpart DD standards 

for ‘‘rack dryers’’ and ‘‘column dryers’’ 

and add a provision that ‘‘wire screen 

column dryers’’ are prohibited from 

discharging into the atmosphere any 

gases that exhibit greater than 10- 

percent opacity. 

• Clarify the requirements for barge 

and ship unloading stations using an 

unloading leg as specified in Table 3 of 

this preamble. 

• Add an opacity limit of 10 percent 

for all affected facilities at barge and 

ship unloading stations that unload 

grain using en-masse drag conveyors. 

• Require that requests for an 

equivalency determination for 

alternative controls for barge unloading 

stations apply only to barge unloading 

stations that do not use an unloading leg 

or en-masse drag conveyor. 

• Add a requirement that unloading 

facilities and grain handling operations 

at TSFs meet the subpart DD 

requirements for PM (0.01 gr/dscf) and 

opacity (5 percent for truck unloading 

and 0 percent for grain handling) if 

portable equipment is not used. 

• Add a requirement that the 

standards of subpart DDa apply at all 

times including periods of SSM. 

Test Methods and Procedures 

We are proposing the following 

actions to test methods and procedures: 

• Annual opacity testing be 

conducted for each applicable opacity 

limit for each affected facility (using 

Method 9). 

• PM testing be conducted every 60 

months for each applicable PM limit for 

each affected facility (using Method 5 or 

17). 

Reporting Requirements 

We are proposing that, within 60 days 

of each performance test, the results of 

the performance test be submitted 

electronically to the EPA using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI) that is 

accessed through the EPA’s CDX (https: 

//cdx.epa.gov/). Performance test data 

would be required to be submitted in 

the file format generated through use of 

the EPA’s ERT (see http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttn/chief/ert/index.html). This 

requirement only applies to the EPA test 

methods that are ERT-compatible. These 

methods are listed on the ERT Web site. 

Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Requirements 

The General Provisions in 40 CFR part 

60 provide that emissions in excess of 

the level of the applicable emission 

limit during periods of SSM shall not be 

considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable standard. See 

40 CFR 60.8(c). The General Provisions, 

however, may be amended for 

individual subparts. Here, the EPA is 

proposing standards in subpart DDa that 

apply at all times as specified in the 

proposed § 60.302a(e). This is discussed 

further in section V.C.3, and with 

respect to specific standards in various 

sections below. 

Monitoring Requirements 

We are proposing the following new 

monitoring requirements: 

• Fabric filter/baghouse inspections 

every 6 months. 

• Weekly visible emissions checks of 

affected facilities. 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

We are proposing the following new 

records: 

• Total storage capacity (bushels) for 

each building, bin (excluding TSFs), 

and silo used to store grain. 

• Storage capacity for each TSF. 

• Calculations documenting the 

emissions quantification for excess 

emission events. 

• Results of fabric filter/baghouse 

inspections and any corrective action 

taken maintained on-site. 

• Results of weekly visible emission 

checks, including any corrective action 

taken. Records maintained on site for a 

minimum of 36 months. 

• Results of the annual opacity tests. 

• The type of grain processed during 

performance tests at the affected facility. 

V. Rationale for Proposed Amendments 

CAA section 111(a)(1) requires that 

standards of performance for new 

sources reflect the ‘‘. . . degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

the application of the best system of 

emission reduction which (taking into 

account the cost of achieving such 

reduction, and any nonair quality health 

and environmental impacts and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated.’’ 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to review and revise, 

if appropriate, NSPS standards. 

Accordingly, we conducted the 

following evaluations as part of our 

review of subpart DD: 

• We conducted a BSER analysis for 

the grain elevator source category. 

• We evaluated the method for 

determining applicability under subpart 

DD. 

• We evaluated whether any changes 

are needed to the subpart DD 

compliance requirements. 

• We evaluated subpart DD for any 

provisions that need clarification. 

We are proposing minor revisions to 

subpart DD that would apply 

retrospectively to all facilities that 

currently are subject to subpart DD. We 

are also proposing a new subpart DDa 

that would apply to affected facilities 

that commence construction, 

modification or reconstruction after July 

9, 2014. The proposed requirements in 

subpart DDa include the clarifications 

we are proposing to subpart DD as well 

as some substantive new requirements. 

Our decision to propose revisions to 

subpart DD and propose a new subpart 

DDa is explained in detail in sections 

V.A through D of this preamble. 

A. How did the EPA conduct the BSER 

analysis? 

A performance standard reflects the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the BSER that 

the EPA determines has been adequately 

demonstrated, taking into consideration 

costs, nonair quality health and 

environmental impacts and energy 

requirements. 

We conducted the BSER review by 

first assessing changes that have 

occurred to the grain elevator source 

category since the last review of the 

NSPS in 1984. We then identified 

currently used, new and emerging 

control systems and assessed whether 

they represent advances in emission 

reduction techniques compared to the 

control techniques used to comply with 

the existing NSPS. For each new or 

emerging control option identified, we 

then evaluated emission reductions, 

costs, energy requirements and non-air 

quality impacts. The results of these 

considerations are presented in section 

V.A.1 of this preamble. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39249 

1. Evaluation of Grain Elevator Source 

Category for Significant Changes to 

Emission Sources 

The EPA gathered information from 

various sources to identify significant 

changes that have occurred to the grain 

elevator source category since the last 

NSPS review. We reviewed several 

sources of information, including 

responses from an industry survey, 

information in the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse (RBLC), requirements in 

state rules and additional information 

collected from the grain elevator 

industry. Sections V.A.1.a through 

V.A.1.d of this preamble describe our 

review of each source of information 

and section V.A.1.e of this preamble 

presents the results of the EPA’s 

evaluation of these sources including 

any significant changes identified. 

a. CAA Section 114 Information 

Collection Request 

To characterize the current state of 

emissions, practices, operations and 

controls in the industry, we conducted 

a CAA section 114 ICR in 2009 for grain 

elevator operations. The survey was 

addressed to facilities with any grain 

elevator that would constitute a ‘‘grain 

terminal elevator’’ or a ‘‘grain storage 

elevator’’ (as defined in 40 CFR 60.301). 

To gather general background 

information about the industry, 

respondents were required to submit 

information for facilities based on 

storage type, grain(s) handled and the 

EPA region. Survey responses were 

collected from 121 grain elevators. The 

survey responses provided information 

on grain elevator capacity, grain elevator 

throughputs for three successive years, 

the use of temporary storage facilities, 

barge unloading operations, dryer 

design, general information on facility 

characteristics and control devices and 

work practices used to reduce PM 

emissions from various sources. The 

survey responses and database 

developed from the response 

information are in the grain elevator 

docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

b. Review of the RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse 

The EPA established the RBLC as a 

repository of information on air 

pollution control technologies required 

by state air pollution control programs 

(including past RACT, BACT and LAER 

decisions). Reasonably Available 

Control Technology is required on 

existing sources in areas that are not 

meeting national ambient air quality 

standards (i.e., non-attainment areas). 

Under the New Source Review (NSR) 

program, BACT is required on new or 

modified major sources in attainment 

areas and LAER is required on new or 

modified major sources in nonattainment areas. We reviewed the 

RBLC to identify any new control 

technologies that have been used at 

grain elevators since the last review of 

the rule. Results of the RBLC review are 

discussed in the memorandum, 

‘‘Evaluation of the Revisions to Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards’’ in the 

grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

c. Review of State Regulations 

In order to assess whether state 

regulations provide more stringent 

emission limits or additional controls 

than subpart DD, we conducted a review 

of the regulations from the 12 states 

with the most grain storage capacity and 

the largest number of grain elevators in 

operation. The 12 states are: Iowa, 

Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Ohio, Texas, Missouri and Wisconsin. 

We reviewed each state’s grain elevator 

standards and evaluated other state 

regulations controlling PM, opacity and 

fugitive dust emissions that may be 

applicable to grain elevators. The review 

of state rules is presented in the 

memorandum, ’’Evaluation of Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards in 

Response to Executive Order 13563’’ in 

the grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0706. 

d. Other Data Gathering Activities 

The EPA conducted several meetings 

with a coalition representing grain 

elevators owners and operators. 

Members of the coalition provided 

information on current practices and 

provided technical presentations to the 

EPA. The technical presentations and 

coalition submittals are contained in the 

grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

e. Results of Evaluations 

Based on our review of the state rules, 

we identified no requirements more 

stringent than those in subpart DD. Our 

review of the RBLC did not identify any 

control techniques that are different 

from the control techniques used by 

grain elevators to comply with the 

subpart DD standards. Our review of the 

survey responses and information 

gathered at meetings resulted in 

identifying: (1) Emissions test reports 

and one control technique that we 

determined not to be BSER for affected 

facilities as explained below, and (2) 

several new emission sources since 

subpart DD was last reviewed in 1984. 

Section V.A.e.2 discusses our evaluation 

of new information collected for 

existing affected facilities. Section 

V.A.e.3 discusses our evaluation of the 

new emission sources. Both evaluations 

are documented in the memorandum, 

‘‘Evaluation of the Revisions to Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards’’ in the 

grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

2. BSER Evaluation for Subpart DD 

Affected Facilities 

Subpart DD regulates the following 

affected facilities: grain dryers, grain 

handling, grain loading stations (trucks, 

railcars and barges/ships) and grain 

unloading stations (trucks, railcars and 

barges/ships). Subpart DD requires 

affected facilities, except grain dryers, to 

meet a PM emission limit of 0.01 gr/

dscfm for process emissions (i.e., nonfugitive emissions). All affected 

facilities are also required to meet 

opacity limits, specific to each affected 

facility, to control fugitive dust 

emissions. As discussed earlier, we did 

not identify any more stringent state 

requirements or more advanced 

emission control technology from the 

RBLC for these affected facilities. 

Some of the grain elevators 

responding to the 2009 CAA section 114 

survey also provided emissions test 

reports and permit information. We 

evaluated the PM emissions test reports 

to determine whether the PM emission 

limits in subpart DD were reflective of 

emissions from well-controlled 

facilities. The survey responses, permit 

information and information collected 

from a literature search provided 

information on application of mineral 

oil as a dust suppression technique to 

reduce fugitive PM emissions. We 

conducted a BSER analysis for fugitive 

emissions considering the application of 

mineral oil to grain. 

The results of the BSER analysis 

showed that for fugitive sources, the 

limited information available did not 

indicate any advances in emission 

control techniques that support 

changing the current NSPS 

requirements, including the application 

of mineral oil. An emission limit 

developed using the emissions data 

collected with the survey responses 

resulted in an achievable limit that is 

the same as the limit in subpart DD. Our 

detailed review is discussed in V.A.2.a 

and V.A.2.b of this preamble. 

No other emission control 

technologies or work practices have 

been identified for reducing emissions 

from affected facilities at grain storage 

or grain terminal elevators. Based on 

these results, consistent with our 

obligations under CAA section 111(b), 

we propose that the control techniques 

and resultant emission reductions on 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39250 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. 

Chapter 9.9.1 Grain Elevators and Processes. 

2 1978 BID, Chapter 5. 

3Oil Suppression of Particulate Matter at Grain 

Elevators. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

EPA–453/R–94–049. July 1994. 

which the current NSPS is based still 

represent BSER. 

a. Review of PM Emission Limit 

We conducted a BSER analysis to 

determine if we should propose a 

different PM emission limit for newly 

constructed, modified, and 

reconstructed affected facilities at grain 

elevators. Subpart DD requires process 

emissions from affected facilities (e.g., 

truck unloading stations, grain handling 

operations, etc., but excluding grain 

dryers) to meet a PM emission limit of 

0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot 

(gr/dscf). Grain elevators typically meet 

the standard using fabric filters. 

The EPA estimates between 340 and 

920 grain elevators could be subject to 

Subpart DD. In 2009, EPA sent CAA 

section 114 surveys to 120 grain 

elevators to characterize the industry 

and obtain data on PM emission control 

techniques and associated emissions. 

Respondents to the survey provided PM 

emission test reports from 15 grain 

elevators, which represent only 

approximately 1.6 percent to 4 percent 

of the grain elevators potentially subject 

to subpart DD. We first evaluated the 

test reports to determine whether 

sufficient information existed to 

propose revisions to the PM emission 

limit. The 15 grain elevators who 

submitted test reports for PM emissions 

controlled with fabric filters submitted 

those reports for the following affected 

facilities: (1) 7 railcar unloading 

stations; (2) 4 truck unloading stations; 

(3) 3 grain handling operations; and (4) 

2 barge unloading stations. The survey 

results indicated that a typical grain 

elevator has on average 2 truck 

unloading stations, 4 grain handling 

operations, 1 barge unloading station, 

and 1 railcar unloading station. 

Information provided in the survey 

responses also indicated that 

approximately 75 percent of railcar 

unloading stations, truck unloading 

stations, barge unloading stations, and 

grain handling operations are subject to 

subpart DD. Applying the typical counts 

to the estimated range of grain elevators 

that could be subject to subpart DD, and 

accounting for the fraction that could be 

subject to subpart DD, the number of 

affected facilities potentially subject to 

subpart DD is between 2,200 and 6,200. 

Comparing these numbers to the 

number of tests reports collected, we 

estimated that the facilities submitting 

PM emission test reports account for 

only approximately 0.3 percent to 0.7 

percent of the population of railcar 

unloading stations, truck unloading 

stations, grain handling operations, and 

barge unloading stations at grain 

elevators that could be subject to 

subpart DD. Additionally, the test 

reports do not include any tests 

conducted at barge/ship loading 

stations, railcar loading stations, or 

truck loading stations. 

We further evaluated the PM emission 

levels from the available test reports, 

measured as an average of three test 

runs, which ranged from 0.01 to 0.00002 

gr/dscf. It appears the wide variation in 

PM emissions is due to the different 

affected facilities that were tested, other 

operational considerations (i.e., speed of 

the process) and grain characteristics. 

EPA had previously concluded that the 

amount of dust emitted during 

processing of grain in the various 

affected facilities depends on the type of 

grain being handled, the quality of the 

grain, and the moisture content of the 

grain.1 The emission test information 

gathered for the 1978 subpart DD 

proposal 2 indicates that the type of 

grain processed affects the PM 

emissions, with one to two orders of 

magnitude difference in PM emissions 

between affected facilities processing 

soybeans and corn (higher emissions) 

than those processing wheat and milo. 

The PM emission limit in the grain 

elevator NSPS covers eight different 

grains. However, it does not appear that 

the emission tests for the 15 grain 

elevators cover all the 8 grains. Many of 

the test reports do not indicate the grain 

type being processed during the test. 

In considering the limited data and 

the limitations of the data, we 

concluded that the PM emission test 

reports do not sufficiently characterize 

the performance of fabric filters 

controlling PM from the full range of 

affected facilities subject to subpart DD. 

Accordingly, we have determined that 

there is insufficient available 

information to support proposed 

revisions to the PM emission limits. We 

are therefore proposing to maintain the 

PM limit at 0.01 gr/dscf. 

We believe the limited number of test 

reports submitted is due to the current 

subpart DD only requiring one initial 

emission test of an affected facility. As 

discussed in Section V.C.1 of this 

preamble, EPA believes that additional 

testing is needed to ensure compliance 

with the emission limit. We are 

therefore proposing, in subpart DDa, to 

require repeat testing of affected 

facilities every five years. Not only will 

these tests help the sources determine 

compliance with the standards, they 

will provide a more robust set of 

information for when this rule is next 

reviewed. We estimate that by the next 

8 year review of subpart DDa, initial PM 

emission tests may be conducted on as 

many as 300 affected facilities and 

repeat testing may be conducted on as 

many as 120 affected facilities, 

providing approximately 420 PM 

emission tests to evaluate for 

determining whether to revise the PM 

limit. We are also proposing that the 

emission tests be conducted while 

processing the highest PM emitting 

grains to establish PM emissions for all 

operating scenarios that are expected to 

occur. We are also proposing to require 

records of the grain type processed 

during the testing. 

b. Application of Mineral Oil 

A few permits submitted with 

responses to the CAA section 114 

surveys indicate that some grain 

elevators use mineral oil as a fugitive 

dust suppression technique. Mineral oil 

application is primarily used to reduce 

the possibility of a grain elevator 

explosion caused by dust. 

The EPA has previously studied the 

application of mineral oil at grain 

elevators, noting that there were several 

potential benefits, such as reduced dust 

disposal cost, less grain weight loss, as 

well as improved safety in the working 

environment.3 However, compared to 

currently used technology for 

controlling process emissions, i.e., 

fabric filters, the study indicated that oil 

application systems were not as 

effective as fabric filters in reducing PM. 

The EPA also concluded that the 

emission tests conducted were 

inadequate for the purpose of 

determining emissions and developing 

emission factors because they were pilot 

studies or controlled tests. Therefore, 

mineral oil application as a replacement 

for existing controls has not been 

demonstrated to be a feasible control 

option. We do not have information on 

the appropriateness or effectiveness of 

using mineral oil in combination with 

existing technologies, such as fabric 

filters. 

The subpart DD fugitive emission 

standards require meeting a 0 percent 

opacity limit for grain handling 

operations and require opacities ranging 

from 5 to 20 percent for loading and 

unloading stations. We do not have 

information on how mineral oil 

application would affect the fugitive 

opacity limits, e.g., whether the opacity 

levels would decrease to 0 percent, stay 

the same or result in another limit. 

Additionally, portable grain handling 

equipment, such as portable augers, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39251 

portable conveyors and front-end 

loaders are often used at grain elevators. 

We do not have information on whether 

mineral oil application is feasible or 

would reduce emissions at facilities that 

use portable grain loading equipment to 

reduce fugitive emissions. The size and 

design of these systems may affect both 

their ability and the time necessary to 

mix mineral oil thoroughly with grain to 

be an effective dust suppression 

technique. 

The EPA mineral oil study also noted 

that there are concerns regarding the 

effect the oil has on grain quality, and 

consequently, its price. The EPA study 

indicates that mills and distilleries are 

concerned about the long-term effects of 

oil on grain. For some grains, the use of 

mineral oil may be more problematic, 

such as for wheat in the milling process. 

In addition, grain exported to other 

countries may be required to meet 

hydrocarbon levels and grain not 

meeting those levels may be considered 

contaminated. For example, the 

European Union’s code of practices 

states that any detection of a level of 

mineral oil above 300 mg/kg is 

considered to be contaminated by 

mineral oil. Therefore, mineral oil 

application might not be economically 

feasible for all grains and may result in 

product quality and contamination 

concerns. 

EPA has only limited information on 

the effectiveness and cost of mineral oil 

application, and no test information. We 

have concluded that mineral oil 

application as a dust suppression 

technique for limiting emissions from 

fugitive sources has not been 

demonstrated. Therefore, we are not 

proposing a requirement to use mineral 

oil. We are requesting additional 

information on the effectiveness of 

mineral oil in combination with existing 

controls and when applied at fugitive 

sources regulated by the NSPS, 

particularly those associated with 

portable grain handling equipment. We 

are also soliciting information on the 

capital and operating cost of mineral oil 

application systems and any problems 

in grain quality associated with using 

mineral oil. 

3. BSER Evaluation for New or 

Significantly Changed Emission Sources 

Our review of the survey responses 

and presentations by representatives of 

the grain elevator industry identified the 

following three significant changes that 

have occurred to grain elevators since 

the last review of subpart DD in 1984: 

• Use of new barge unloading 

technologies (e.g., en-masse drag 

conveyors). 

• Use of wire screen column dryers. 

• Use of TSFs. 

We evaluated each of the changes to 

determine if they result in new emission 

sources, and, if so, whether existing 

subpart DD requirements represent 

BSER. To assess BSER, we: (1) Identified 

available control measures applicable to 

each emission source; and (2) evaluated 

these measures to determine emission 

reductions achieved, associated costs, 

nonair environmental impacts, energy 

impacts and any limitations to their 

application. The evaluation is presented 

in sections V.A.3.a through V.A.3.c of 

this preamble. The BSER analysis is 

documented in the memorandum, 

‘‘Evaluation of the Revisions to Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards’’ in the 

grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

a. New Unloading Operation Emission 

Sources at Barges—En-Masse Drag 

Conveyors 

Barge unloading stations are an 

affected facility regulated by subpart 

DD. Subpart DD standards for barge and 

ship unloading were established for a 

specific type of unloading mechanism, 

referred to as either a marine leg or 

bucket elevator. Under subpart DD, 

process emissions caused by unloading 

using a marine leg/bucket elevator must 

be controlled by enclosing the marine 

leg/bucket elevator from the top to the 

bottom of the leg. Emissions must be 

vented to a control device using a 

ventilation flow rate of 40 ft3 per bushel 

of grain unloaded for both the marine 

leg/bucket elevator and receiving 

hopper. Subpart DD also provides for an 

equivalency determination in situations 

where it is not possible to meet the 

design standards. Since the EPA’s last 

review of subpart DD, several new barge 

unloading mechanisms have been 

developed and used, at least one of 

which does not utilize a bucket elevator 

or marine leg, and, as such, cannot use 

the design standards. 

Some barge unloading stations 

currently use en-masse drag conveyors, 

which were not in use the last time we 

reviewed subpart DD. En-masse drag 

conveyors operate under a different 

principle than bucket elevators or 

marine legs. En-masse drag conveyors 

are plug-flow drag conveyors that are 

designed to operate vertically. The 

conveyor uses paddles or flights 

mounted on a chain to move grain. The 

side of the conveyor where the grain is 

being transferred is filled with grain. 

This type of unloader is significantly 

different than a bucket unloading leg 

which has open space between each 

bucket and can therefore be enclosed 

and ventilated to a control device. 

Therefore, dust aspiration to meet the 

design ventilation requirement of 40 ft3

per bushel of grain is not feasible for enmasse drag conveyors because there is 

no headspace for air passage to the grain 

inlet at the base of the conveyor. 

Additionally, the normal mode of 

operation is to bury the conveyor inlet 

into the grain being unloaded, which 

eliminates the need for dust aspiration 

at this point. These types of unloaders 

are becoming more common as they are 

more efficient than the bucket 

unloaders—both in the movement of 

more grain in less time and also 

requiring fewer personnel for the 

operation. Particulate emissions are 

controlled by the design of the unloader 

(burying inlet in grain) without an addon emission control system. This newer 

unloading system was developed for a 

variety of reasons, including faster 

unloading rates, higher capacity 

unloading, cost savings and other sitespecific reasons. 

Section 111 of the CAA makes an 

allowance for the EPA to subcategorize 

source categories based on differences 

in size, type and class. An en-masse 

drag conveyor is a different type of 

barge unloading system than the marine 

leg or bucket elevator due to the 

differences in the unloading 

mechanism. As such, en-masse drag 

conveyors constitute a new subcategory 

of barge unloading system. All 

emissions from barge unloading using 

an en-masse drag conveyor are fugitive 

in nature because they cannot be 

captured and ventilated to a control 

device. Some barges have a small 

opening where the en-masse drag 

conveyor enters and those openings can 

be covered around the en-masse loader, 

thereby limiting fugitive emissions. 

Other barges have a large opening where 

a bulldozer is lowered into the barge to 

move grain toward the unloader. This 

type of application of the en-masse drag 

conveyor does not allow openings to be 

covered, due to safety requirements. No 

other technologies or techniques have 

been identified to control fugitive 

emissions from barge unloading. 

The EPA collected test results from 

two one-hour method 9 tests for opacity 

conducted at one en-masse system 

(loading into the barges with larger 

openings) to demonstrate equivalency 

with the current standards, per the 

requirements in 60.302(d)(3) of subpart 

DD. Method 9 requires that opacity 

readings be recorded to the nearest 5 

percent at 15-second intervals. Opacity 

is determined as an average of 24 

consecutive observations, i.e., a set of 

observations. The average opacity levels 

during the highest set of observations of 

each test were 8.75 and 9.79 percent. 

Because method 9 opacity 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39252 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

measurements are taken in increments 

of 5 percent, a limit based on the 

opacity tests must be rounded to the 

nearest multiple of five. For the tests 

reviewed, the resulting emission limit is 

10 percent opacity. The EPA did not 

receive any information regarding 

whether there would be any cost 

associated with meeting the limit (other 

than testing and recordkeeping and 

reporting), or receive any information 

regarding whether there would be any 

emission reductions. However, a 

comparison between the opacity limit 

calculated and the data collected from 

the en-masse conveyor show that the 10 

percent opacity limit can be met by 

affected facilities using the en-masse 

conveyor system to unload barges 

without additional control, resulting in 

no cost or emission impacts for meeting 

the opacity limit. Additionally, we do 

not expect there to be any non-air 

quality health and environmental 

impacts associated with the limit, nor 

any changes in energy usage or 

emissions of any other pollutant. 

Based on our evaluation, we are 

proposing a new subcategory for barge 

unloading stations—barge unloading 

stations with an en-masse drag 

conveyor. Based on these results, 

consistent with our obligations under 

CAA section 111(b), we are proposing 

that the 10 percent opacity limit 

represents BSER for en-masse drag 

conveyors used to unload grain from 

barges. We are also proposing that such 

systems be required to meet an opacity 

limit of 10 percent at all times. 

We expect that en-masse drag 

conveyor systems that have a small 

opening could achieve a lower level of 

opacity if the opening was covered; 

however, we do not have sufficient data 

to establish a different opacity limit for 

these systems. We do not have 

information on the effectiveness of the 

cover, costs of the cover, procedures for 

using the cover or if there are 

operational or health issues that may 

occur if the opening is covered. We are 

requesting additional information to 

evaluate this control option. 

Subpart DD contains provisions that 

allow for alternative methods of control 

for barge unloading stations instead of 

meeting the requirements for unloading 

legs. We are also proposing similar 

provisions for subpart DDa. We are 

proposing that affected barge unloading 

stations not using an unloading leg or an 

en-masse drag conveyor may use other 

methods of emission control that are 

demonstrated to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction to reduce emissions of PM 

to the same level or less than the 

standards for barge unloaders using 

marine legs or en-mass drag conveyors. 

The EPA requests comment on all 

aspects of the BSER determination for 

barge unloading using an en-masse drag 

conveyor. We also request comment on 

whether there are other types of barge 

unloading systems that should be 

considered for subcategorization. If so, 

the EPA requests information on control 

technologies that may be used on the 

unloading system, costs, emission 

reductions associated with the control 

and emissions test information for them. 

The EPA also requests information on 

technologies or practices that may be 

used to control emissions from barge 

unloading using an en-masse conveyor 

system and additional opacity tests 

conducted at en-masse conveyor 

systems. 

b. New Wire Screen Column Dryers 

Grain dryers are an affected facility 

under subpart DD. The subpart DD 

emission limits for dryers were 

established for two types of grain dryers 

used at grain elevators: rack dryers and 

column dryers. Grain column dryers are 

defined as equipment used for drying 

the grain in which the grain flows by 

gravity from the top of the dryer to the 

bottom in one or more packed columns 

between two perforated metal sheets. 

Subpart DD requires that PM emissions 

from grain dryers be reduced by meeting 

an opacity limit of 0 percent if a column 

dryer uses column plate perforations 

exceeding 0.094 inches, or if a rack 

dryer passes exhaust gases through a 

screen filter coarser than 50 mesh. 

In its review of the grain elevator 

industry, the EPA found that an 

additional type of column grain dryer 

not addressed in subpart DD is now 

being used. Most rice dryers currently 

use column dryers with woven wire 

mesh screens in place of, or in addition 

to, perforated plates because perforated 

plates damage the rice kernel, are less 

efficient for rice drying and are not 

durable. All the wire mesh column 

dryers reported in response to the ICR 

except one are used for drying rice. The 

wire screens also allow for air transport 

from the dryer while entrapping PM 

from the rice. Information provided by 

one company drying rice shows that of 

the 126 dryers they operate, 115 are 

column dryers; 115 of all the dryers 

(column and rack) use a wire screen of 

24 mesh size, and 9 use a 50 mesh size 

for controlling PM emissions (50 mesh 

is a smaller screen size than 24 mesh). 

The 50 mesh screens are being replaced 

over time because of maintenance and 

plugging problems. 

After an evaluation of the differences 

in size, type and class of column dryers, 

per CAA section 111, the EPA is 

proposing that wire screen column 

dryers constitute a new subcategory of 

grain dryers because they are a different 

type of dryer to which subpart DD does 

not apply. 

Emissions from grain dryers are 

fugitive in nature. It is not possible to 

fully enclose grain dryers and vent PM 

emissions to a control device because of 

the large size of the dryer, the way that 

PM is emitted (through the side walls of 

the dryer rather than from a stack or 

vent), and because the dryer needs 

sufficient air flow to work properly and 

an enclosure would restrict the airflow. 

Therefore, there are no add-on controls 

that can be applied to control PM 

emissions from these dryers. The PM 

emitted is a function of the size of the 

openings on the dryer sidewalls. Larger 

openings emit more PM. The current 

industry practice is to use wire screens 

of 24 mesh size to reduce the size of the 

openings, resulting in reducing PM 

emissions. 

The BSER for rice dryers is to use a 

wire screen size of 24 mesh, as it 

reduces PM emissions and also allows 

proper operation of the dryer. We 

identified no regulatory options that are 

more stringent and are technically 

viable. Higher mesh sizes (e.g., 50, 100) 

are available that would have smaller 

openings, resulting in even more 

emissions reductions. However, 

information from one rice facility 

indicates that the 50 mesh screens cause 

plugging problems and choke the 

airflow of the dryers and require 

substantial maintenance to clean. The 

EPA also determined, during the 

development of subpart DD in 1978, that 

the higher sizes, such as 100 mesh 

screens, would restrict air flow and 

result in more plugging of the openings 

such that there would be an 

unreasonable cost impact due to the 

need to clean the screens frequently, 

reduced drying performance and 

additional energy requirements. Those 

determinations are still true today. 

The EPA collected opacity 

information for four column dryers with 

24 mesh wire screens for drying rice. 

The opacity data for these dryers consist 

of one run of 30 minutes of observation 

for each dryer. The average opacities for 

the four dryers ranged from 1.13 to 8.38 

percent, with the average opacities for 

the highest period of observation 

ranging from 5 to 10 percent. After 

rounding to the nearest increment of 5 

percent, the corresponding opacity limit 

based on the data from the four rice 

dryers is 10 percent. Based on the 

information collected, this level is 

achievable by all wire screen column 

dryers using 24 mesh. 

Because this limit is achievable by the 

wire screen column dryers that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39253 

provided information, and these dryers 

would be similar or the same as future 

dryers constructed (i.e., wire screen 

column dryers using 24 mesh), we 

estimated there to be no cost or 

emission impacts from meeting a 10 

percent opacity limit (other than testing, 

recordkeeping and reporting costs). The 

addition of wire screen of 24 mesh to 

column dryers is an equipment design 

feature that reduces PM instead of a 

separate add-on control device where 

emissions are vented. The wire screens 

would not generate secondary pollutant 

emissions or result in increased energy 

use. Therefore, the EPA estimated no 

nonair quality health and environmental 

impacts associated with the limit nor 

any changes in energy usage or 

emissions of any other pollutant. 

Based on this evaluation, we are 

proposing a new subcategory of wire 

screen column dryers in subpart DDa 

with an opacity limit of 10 percent for 

this subcategory. Based on these results, 

consistent with our obligations under 

CAA section 111(b), we propose that an 

opacity limit of 10 percent represents 

BSER for wire screen column dryers and 

are proposing standards for wire screen 

column dryers in subpart DDa. 

We have information from one 

Method 9 test conducted during filling 

and emptying operations for one wire 

screen column dryer drying rice. The 

average opacity for one run of 30 

minutes was 15.6 percent, with the 

average opacity for the highest period of 

observation during the run at 28.75 

percent. We are soliciting additional 

emissions test information and 

descriptions for emptying and filling 

activities to fully understand this 

process and set, if appropriate, a 

standard of performance. 

We request comment on all aspects of 

the BSER analysis for wire screen 

column dryers. We also request 

additional emission test information for 

this subcategory of grain dryer. 

c. Temporary Storage Facilities 

Subpart DD does not regulate grain 

storage units (buildings, bins, silos). 

Instead, subpart DD regulates each 

affected facility (e.g., loading and 

unloading stations, grain dryers, grain 

handling operations) at any grain 

terminal elevator or any grain storage 

elevator. Under subpart DD, grain 

terminal elevators and grain storage 

elevators are defined in part by their 

permanent grain storage capacity. 

‘‘Grain terminal elevator’’ means any 

grain elevator that has a permanent 

storage capacity of more than 2.5 

million bushels (excluding elevators 

located at animal food manufacturers, 

pet food manufacturers, cereal 

manufacturers, breweries and livestock 

feedlots). ‘‘Grain storage elevator’’ 

means any grain elevator located at any 

wheat flour mill, wet corn mill, dry corn 

mill used for human consumption, rice 

mill or soybean extraction plant that has 

a permanent grain storage capacity of 1 

million bushels. 

Temporary storage facilities have been 

used by the grain elevator industry since 

the early 1990s. They are intended for 

bulk storage of grain on a temporary 

basis, i.e., they are intended to handle 

intermittent surges and surpluses and 

are not used necessarily every year. 

Under the U.S. Warehouse Act, TSFs are 

licensed and are defined by the 

following criteria: 

• Use of asphalt, concrete or other 

approved base material. 

• Use of rigid self-supporting 

sidewalls. 

• Use of aeration. 

• Use of an acceptable covering (e.g., 

tarp). 

In 2007, the EPA received a letter 

from the National Grain and Feed 

Association requesting clarification 

about whether a TSF would constitute 

‘‘permanent storage capacity’’ as defined 

in subpart DD for the purpose of 

determining applicability under subpart 

DD. On November 21, 2007, the EPA 

issued a letter indicating that TSFs 

should be included in ‘‘permanent 

storage capacity’’ when determining the 

applicability of subpart DD. The EPA 

conducted additional reviews of TSFs 

and decided that changes to the 

definition of ‘‘permanent storage 

capacity’’ were more appropriately 

made as part of this NSPS review. 

Consequently, the EPA issued letters in 

July 2014 to the National Grain and 

Feed Association and the National 

Oilseed Processors Association, 

rescinding the November 21, 2007, 

letter. These letters can be found at 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0706. 

Information collected in responses to 

surveys the EPA sent to grain elevators, 

gathered at site visits, and at industry 

meetings indicate that while grain 

stored in TSFs is kept on a temporary 

basis, the TSF structures are generally in 

place on a long-term basis and not 

dismantled, and may be used for 

multiple crops. Considering the length 

of time the structure is in place, the TSF 

structure then serves the same purpose 

as a permanent structure, even though 

the materials of construction and storage 

times are different. Therefore, we are 

proposing that the definition of 

‘‘permanent storage capacity’’ include 

TSF capacity. However, we recognize 

that emissions from TSFs are 

significantly different than emissions 

from permanent structures due to the 

differences in grain throughputs. 

Therefore, we are also proposing a 

methodology to prorate the TSF storage 

capacity for the applicability 

determination. Our discussion of this 

methodology is provided in section V.B 

of this preamble. 

We also evaluated BSER for affected 

facilities associated with TSFs. 

Information from site visits and survey 

responses indicate that only truck 

unloading and loading stations and 

grain handling operations are used at 

TSFs. Based on the survey responses 

and information provided by the 

industry, we determined that there are 

two types of grain handling and 

loading/unloading operations associated 

with TSFs: (1) Those associated with 

portable grain handling and loading/

unloading equipment; and (2) those 

associated with fixed grain handling 

and loading/unloading equipment. 

Portable grain handling/loading/

unloading equipment include (but are 

not limited to) portable augers, portable 

conveyors and front-end loaders that are 

not fixed at any one spot and can be 

moved around the site. These pieces of 

equipment are typically not enclosed 

due to potential fine dust explosion risk 

and are therefore not vented to a control 

device. This explosion risk, combined 

with the portable nature of the 

equipment and associated emissions 

does not permit the capture and routing 

of the emissions through a stack for 

control. As such, their emissions are 

fugitive in nature. The EPA does not 

have any emission test information on 

portable grain handling, unloading 

stations and loading stations. We also 

have identified no technically viable 

emission control options for portable 

equipment. We considered application 

of mineral oil for dust suppression, but 

determined in section A.2.b of this 

preamble that application of mineral oil 

was not an appropriate emission control 

technique. Consequently, we propose to 

determine that BSER for portable grain 

handling, loading and unloading 

equipment associated with TSFs is no 

control. We request comment on our 

proposed determination. We are also 

soliciting emissions test data for these 

sources, as well as information on the 

types of emission controls that are 

feasible and the cost of the controls. 

Fixed grain handling and loading/

unloading equipment are constructed to 

be stationary and directly connected to 

the storage facilities for ease of 

transferring grain. Fixed equipment can 

also be enclosed and emissions can be 

vented to a control device. Fixed 

equipment at TSFs are similar to those 

associated with permanent storage 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

units. To control emissions from 

affected facilities associated with TSFs, 

we identified one regulatory option to 

be equal to the subpart DD requirements 

for affected facilities for permanent 

storage units. These requirements 

include: (1) Meeting a PM emission 

limit of 0.023 g/dscm and an opacity 

limit of 0 percent for process emissions; 

and (2) meeting fugitive emission 

standards of a 5 percent opacity limit for 

truck unloading stations, and 0 percent 

opacity for grain handling operations. 

Loading operations from TSFs are 

typically done with portable equipment, 

which we propose the BSER to be no 

control. No other regulatory options 

were identified that are more stringent 

than the subpart DD requirements. As 

discussed in section A.2.b of this 

preamble, we evaluated test information 

submitted with the grain elevator survey 

responses and determined that the 

emission limit that has been 

demonstrated to be achievable is the 

same as the current subpart DD 

standards. Controls used at grain 

elevators are well-operated fabric filters 

and no controls more effective than 

fabric filters were identified. 

We conducted a BSER analysis for 

meeting the subpart DD requirements by 

evaluating the costs and emission 

reductions over a 5 year period to be 

consistent with the economic impacts 

analysis. We identified three scenarios 

at grain elevators that would be affected 

by adding TSFs: (1) A greenfield facility 

that exceeds the subpart DDa 

applicability criteria due to the capacity 

of TSFs; (2) an existing facility that is 

below the subpart DDa applicability 

criteria, but then adds a TSF and 

exceeds the criteria; and (3) an existing 

facility already subject to subpart DD 

(because it exceeds the subpart DD 

applicability criteria) that then adds a 

TSF. The additional costs associated 

with these scenarios include a shed to 

limit fugitives from unloading stations 

to meet the applicable opacity standard, 

and in certain situations, new fabric 

filters to meet PM limits. In other 

situations, the EPA concluded that PM 

emissions from the affected facility 

could be vented to an existing fabric 

filter at the grain elevator. Emission 

reductions were estimated based on 

routing PM emissions from grain sent to 

the TSF (and using truck unloading and 

grain handling affected facilities) to a 

fabric filter. 

We estimated the capital costs to be 

$1.09 million and the total annual cost 

(including testing and monitoring costs) 

to be $0.616 million. The emission 

reductions were estimated to be 31 tons 

of PM10 per year. Our analysis of BSER 

is documented in the memorandum 

‘‘Evaluation of Revisions to Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards.’’ We 

determined that these costs and 

emission reductions were reasonable 

and BSER is compliant with the 

proposed subpart DDa PM and opacity 

limits for fixed equipment. We request 

comment on our determination and 

additional cost and emissions 

information on these systems specific to 

TSFs. 

B. How did the EPA evaluate changes to 

the methodology for determining 

applicability of the grain elevator NSPS? 

Information collected in responses to 

surveys the EPA sent to grain elevators 

shows that TSFs are intended for bulk 

storage of grain on a temporary basis, 

i.e., they are intended to handle 

intermittent surges and surpluses and 

are not used necessarily every year, 

even though the structure may be in 

place for several years. The survey 

responses show that, on average, TSFs 

have one turnover per year. Specifically, 

they are filled one time in a year and 

emptied once each year. Other types of 

storage facilities (buildings, bins (not 

including TSFs) and silos) have, on 

average, nine turnovers a year, and 

throughput a significantly higher 

amount of grain in a year than TSFs. 

The same amount of grain stored in 

TSFs could be stored in smaller-sized 

permanent storage facilities that are 

turned over more frequently. Due to the 

uncertainties in crop forecasts and 

fluctuations in crop yields and 

economics, TSFs are used rather than 

constructing other types of structures 

that are more costly and may not be 

warranted in the future. 

Emissions from affected facilities at 

grain elevators are proportional to the 

amount of grain throughput. 

Consequently, affected facilities 

associated with TSFs have significantly 

less emissions than affected facilities 

associated with other types of storage. 

Based on the information collected in 

the surveys and the EPA’s 

understanding of the different uses 

between TSFs and other types of storage 

facilities, the EPA has concluded that 

the capacity of TSFs, as an indicator of 

emissions, is not a one-to-one 

equivalency to the capacity of other 

types of grain storage units. As a result, 

the EPA analyzed the survey 

information and developed a method for 

calculating an adjusted TSF storage 

capacity that would be equivalent to the 

storage capacity of other types of grain 

storage units (i.e., buildings, silos and 

bins). This adjusted storage capacity for 

TSFs would then be used to calculate 

‘‘permanent storage capacity’’ by 

summing the adjusted TSF capacity 

with the capacity for all other types of 

structures. 

For subpart DDa, the EPA is 

proposing a method for determining the 

adjusted TSF storage capacity for a 

given grain elevator by: (1) Establishing 

the ratio of total annual storage capacity 

of all other types of storage facilities 

(excluding TSFs) to the total grain 

throughput for those storage facilities; 

and (2) applying that ratio to the total 

TSF capacity, thereby factoring down 

the TSF capacity. 

For example, consider a grain elevator 

has 2,000,000 bushels of storage 

capacity in silos and an average annual 

throughput of 16,000,000 bushels 

through the silos. The ratio of 

permanent storage capacity to 

throughput is 0.125. If a TSF is 

constructed with a storage capacity of 

1,000,000 bushels, the TSF capacity 

would be multiplied by the 0.125 ratio 

resulting in an equivalent permanent 

capacity of 125,000 bushels. The total 

permanent capacity of the grain elevator 

would be 2,125,000 bushels. 

The EPA is proposing that grain 

elevators with new affected facilities use 

this method to calculate ‘‘permanent 

storage capacity’’ for determining 

applicability of subpart DDa. The EPA is 

proposing that, when historical 

throughput data are available for all 

storage facilities, grain elevators would 

be required to use the historical data to 

calculate a site-specific adjusted TSF 

storage capacity, and use the following 

equation to calculate ‘‘permanent 

storage capacity:’’ 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Tp = Maximum annual throughput of grain 

for all buildings, bins (excluding TSFs) 

and silos used to store grain (bushels per 

year) over the previous 5 years. 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all TSFs used 

to store grain (bushels). 

For situations where at least one grain 

storage building, bin or silo did not exist 

prior to the date that construction, 

modification or reconstruction of the 

affected facility commenced (i.e., the 

grain elevator does not have historical 

throughput data for the storage 

facilities), the EPA is proposing that 

grain elevators use a default factor to 

calculate the adjusted TSF capacity. The 

following equation would be used to 

then calculate the ‘‘permanent storage 

capacity’’: 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09JY14.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39255 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all TSFs used 

to store grain (bushels). 

0.34 = Default ratio of permanent grain 

storage capacity to annual throughput 

We request comment on this proposed 

approach. Refer to the memorandum, 

‘‘Determination of Permanent Storage 

Capacity Equivalents for Temporary 

Storage Facilities’’ in the grain elevator 

docket at EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706 for 

further details. 

C. How did the EPA evaluate the 

compliance requirements in the grain 

elevator NSPS? 

In subpart DDa, we are proposing new 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements and new 

provisions for startup, shutdown and 

malfunctions. 

1. Testing and Monitoring Requirements 

The EPA evaluated the monitoring 

requirements currently required in 

subpart DD to determine if they are 

adequate for determining compliance. 

Currently under subpart DD, grain 

elevators are required to conduct an 

initial PM and opacity performance test 

but are not required to perform followon testing to demonstrate continuous 

compliance. In light of our 

understanding that equipment need to 

be periodically maintained and checked 

for operational performance to ensure 

compliance with the emission 

standards, the EPA concluded that 

additional compliance requirements are 

needed in the proposed subpart DDa 

rule. In subpart DDa, the EPA is 

proposing to require periodic 

compliance testing for affected facilities. 

We are proposing that PM performance 

tests using EPA Method 5 or Method 17 

be conducted every 60 months and 

opacity tests using Method 9 be 

conducted annually. We are proposing 

that operators perform weekly visual 

emissions checks on affected facilities 

and maintain records of these checks, 

including any corrective action taken as 

a result of visible emissions. The 

proposed requirements are expected to 

ensure that emission control systems are 

properly maintained over time, ensure 

continuous compliance with standards 

and improve data accessibility. For 

fabric filter and baghouse control 

devices, we are proposing that affected 

facilities perform periodic visual 

inspections of the inside of the 

baghouse or fabric filter at intervals of 

6 months. Corrective action must be 

taken if the baghouse is in need of repair 

or replacement. 

We are requesting comment on 

whether to require bag leak detection 

systems (BLDS) at affected facilities 

controlled with fabric filters and 

baghouses. Bag leak detectors are one 

method that has been used in other 

source categories for ensuring proper 

performance of fabric filter and 

baghouses. The EPA has estimated the 

capital cost of BLDS to be $24,000 per 

application. We are soliciting comments 

on whether BLDS can be used for 

affected facilities in this source 

category, problems that may occur 

specific to their use in this source 

category and the reasonableness of the 

cost for this source category. 

2. Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements 

In subpart DDa, we are proposing that 

the following records be maintained: 

• The total storage capacity (bushels) 

for each building, bin (excluding TSFs) 

and silo used to store grain. 

• The storage capacity of each TSF. 

• Records quantifying emissions over 

the applicable standards for excess 

emissions events. 

• Results of 6 month baghouse and 

fabric filter inspections, including any 

corrective action. 

• Weekly visual emissions checks 

and any corrective action taken as a 

result of positive visual emissions 

checks. 

• Results of annual opacity tests. 

• The type of grain processed during 

the performance test at the affected 

facility. 

In subpart DDa, we are proposing that 

the following records be reported: 

• Results of performance tests, 

including Method 5, 17 and 9. 

• Reports required to be submitted by 

part 60 general provisions. 

The storage capacities of the various 

storage units are inputs to the 

calculation of equivalent permanent 

storage capacity, which is an input to 

the calculation of equivalent permanent 

storage capacity for TSFs. They are 

necessary to verify compliance with the 

applicability of the standard. Records 

quantifying the emissions for excess 

emission events provide the EPA 

information on the magnitude of the 

emissions release. 

As discussed in section V.C.1 of this 

preamble, we are proposing that grain 

elevators conduct PM compliance 

testing every 60 months and opacity 

testing annually and conduct weekly 

visual inspections of affected facilities. 

We are proposing that the Method 5 (or 

Method 17) and the Method 9 test 

results be reported to the EPA. Results 

of the visual inspections are proposed to 

be maintained on site. The type of grain 

processed during performance tests 

allows EPA to better characterize the 

emissions measured. 

Electronic Reporting Tool 

Through this proposal, the EPA is 

describing a process to increase the ease 

and efficiency of performance test data 

submittal and improve data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of 

grain elevators submit electronic copies 

of required performance test reports to 

the EPA’s WebFIRE database. Data will 

be entered through an electronic 

emissions test report structure called the 

ERT. The ERT will generate an 

electronic report which will be 

submitted using the CEDRI. The 

submitted report will be stored in both 

EPA’s CDX and in the WebFIRE 

database making access to data very 

straightforward and easy. A description 

of the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The proposal to submit performance 

test data electronically to the EPA 

applies only to those performance tests 

conducted using test methods that will 

be supported by the ERT. The ERT 

contains a specific electronic data entry 

form for most of the commonly used 

EPA reference methods. A listing of the 

pollutants and test methods supported 

by the ERT is available at: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. 

We believe that industry will benefit 

from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. The EPA 

believes, through this approach, 

industry will save time in the 

performance test submittal process. 

Additionally, the standardized format 

that the ERT uses allows sources to 

create a more complete test report 

resulting in less time spent on data 

backfilling if a source did not know 

which data elements were required to be 

submitted. Also through this proposal, 

industry would only need to submit a 

report once to meet the requirements of 

the applicable subpart. This means that 

the report would be accessible on the 

WebFIRE database by any stakeholder 

who requested a copy from the facility 

resulting in a time saving for industry. 

This also benefits industry by cutting 

back on recordkeeping costs as the 

performance test reports that are 

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09JY14.007</GPH>
39256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

no longer required to be kept on-site. 

Thus, staff time needed to coordinate 

these records would be reduced. 

Another benefit to industry is that 

since the EPA will already have 

performance test data in hand, fewer or 

less substantial data collection requests 

in conjunction with prospective 

required technology reviews will be 

needed. This would result in a decrease 

in staff time needed to respond to data 

collection requests. 

State, local and tribal agencies will 

also benefit from more streamlined and 

accurate review of electronic data 

submitted to them. For example, the 

ERT would allow for an electronic 

review process rather than a manual 

data assessment; thus making review 

and evaluation of the source-provided 

data and calculations easier and more 

efficient. In addition, the public stands 

to benefit from electronic reporting of 

emissions data because the electronic 

data will be easier for the public to 

access and it will be available shortly 

after it is submitted in the system. For 

example, the WebFIRE database is easily 

accessible and provides a user friendly 

interface for any stakeholder to find and 

review any report submitted. 

One major shared advantage of the 

proposed submittal of performance test 

data through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states what testing information would 

be required by the test method and has 

the ability to house additional data 

elements required by a delegated 

authority. Another important proposed 

benefit of submitting these data to the 

EPA at the time the source test is 

conducted is that it should substantially 

reduce the effort involved in data 

collection activities in the future. 

Having these data allows the EPA to 

develop improved emission factors, 

make fewer information requests and 

promulgate better regulations. 

In addition, the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA sections 112 

and 129 standards, as well as for many 

other purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners and 

operators, to locate, collect and submit 

performance test data because of varied 

locations for data storage and varied 

data storage methods. In recent years, 

however, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from performance 

tests, the EPA would be able to ensure 

that emission factors, when updated, 

represent the most current range of 

operational practices. Finally, another 

benefit of the proposed data submittal to 

WebFIRE electronically is that these 

data would greatly improve the overall 

quality of existing and new emissions 

factors by supplementing the pool of 

emissions test data for establishing 

emissions factors 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would save industry, state, 

local, tribal agencies and the EPA 

significant time, money and effort while 

also improving the quality of emission 

inventories and, as a result, air quality 

regulations. 

3. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

Provisions 

The general provisions in 40 CFR part 

60 provide that emissions in excess of 

the level of the applicable emissions 

limit during periods of SSM shall not be 

considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable standard (see 

40 CFR 60.8(c)). In its 2008 decision in 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. 

Cir. 2008), 130 S. Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010), 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit 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 40 CFR 63.6(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 some section 112 

standards apply continuously. We are 

proposing the elimination of the SSM 

exemption in this rule. Consistent with 

Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is 

proposing standards in this rule that 

apply at all times, including periods of 

startup or shutdown. The EPA has 

attempted to ensure that the provisions 

we are proposing to eliminate are 

inappropriate, unnecessary or 

redundant in the absence of the SSM 

exemption. We are specifically seeking 

comment on whether we have 

successfully done so. 

a. Periods of Startup and Shutdown 

In proposing the standards in this 

rule, the EPA has taken into account 

startup and shutdown periods and does 

not have any information that indicates 

that emissions during startup and 

shutdown are different from emissions 

during steady-state operation; therefore, 

the EPA proposes to apply the proposed 

standards during all periods of 

operation. 

If you believe that the EPA’s 

conclusion is incorrect or that the EPA 

has failed to consider any relevant 

information on this point, we encourage 

you to submit comments, including test 

data during periods of startup and 

shutdown. In particular, we note that 

the general provisions in part 60 require 

facilities to keep records of the 

occurrence and duration of any SSM (40 

CFR 60.7(b)) and either report to the 

EPA any period of excess emissions that 

occurs during periods of SSM (40 CFR 

60.7(c)(2)) or report that no excess 

emissions occurred (40 CFR 60.7(c)(4)). 

Thus, any comments that contend that 

sources cannot meet the proposed 

standard during startup and shutdown 

periods should provide these data and 

other specifics supporting their claim. 

b. Periods of Malfunction 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as ‘‘any sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. Failures that 

are caused in part by poor maintenance 

or careless operation are not 

malfunctions.’’ (40 CFR 60.2). The EPA 

has determined that section 111 does 

not require that emissions that occur 

during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA anticipate and account for the 

innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission 

standards. CAA section 111 provides 

that the EPA set standards of 

performance which reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

’’the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

A malfunction is a failure of the source 

to perform in a ‘‘normal or usual 

manner’’ and no statutory language 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39257 

4The court’s reasoning in NRDC focuses on civil 

judicial actions. The Court noted that ‘‘EPA’s ability 

to determine whether penalties should be assessed 

for Clean Air Act violations extends only to 

administrative penalties, not to civil penalties 

imposed by a court.’’ Id. 

compels EPA to consider such events in 

setting standards based on the ‘‘best 

system of emission reduction.’’ The 

’’application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ is more 

appropriately understood to include 

operating units in such a way as to 

avoid malfunctions. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

in setting emission standards would be 

difficult, if not impossible, given the 

myriad different types of malfunctions 

that can occur across all sources in the 

category and given the difficulties 

associated with predicting or accounting 

for the frequency, degree and duration 

of various malfunctions that might 

occur. As such, the performance of units 

that are malfunctioning is not 

‘‘reasonably’’ foreseeable. See, e.g., 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 

(D.C. Cir. 1999) (‘‘The EPA typically has 

wide latitude in determining the extent 

of data-gathering necessary to solve a 

problem. We generally defer to an 

agency’s decision to proceed on the 

basis of imperfect scientific information, 

rather than to ‘invest the resources to 

conduct the perfect study.’’’). See also, 

Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 

1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (‘‘In the nature of 

things, no general limit, individual 

permit, or even any upset provision can 

anticipate all upset situations. After a 

certain point, the transgression of 

regulatory limits caused by 

‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’ 

such as strikes, sabotage, operator 

intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 

other eventualities, must be a matter for 

the administrative exercise of case-bycase enforcement discretion, not for 

specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, emissions 

during a malfunction event can be 

significantly higher than emissions at 

any other time of source operation and 

thus accounting for malfunctions could 

lead to standards that are significantly 

less stringent than levels that are 

achieved by a well-performing nonmalfunctioning source. It is reasonable 

to interpret section 111 to avoid such a 

result. The EPA’s approach to 

malfunctions is consistent with section 

111 and is a reasonable interpretation of 

the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 111 

standards was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of 

malfunction). 

Further, to the extent the EPA files an 

enforcement action against a source for 

violation of an emission standard, the 

source can raise any and all defenses in 

that enforcement action and the federal 

district court will determine what, if 

any, relief is appropriate. The same is 

true for citizen enforcement actions. 

Similarly, the presiding officer in an 

administrative proceeding can consider 

any defense raised and determine 

whether administrative penalties are 

appropriate. 

In several prior rules, the EPA had 

included an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations caused by 

malfunctions in an effort to create a 

system that incorporates some 

flexibility, recognizing that there is a 

tension, inherent in many types of air 

regulation, between ensuring adequate 

compliance and simultaneously 

recognizing that despite the most 

diligent of efforts, emission standards 

may be violated under circumstances 

entirely beyond the control of the 

source. Although the EPA recognized 

that its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion provides flexibility in these 

circumstances, it included the 

affirmative defense language to provide 

a more formalized approach and more 

regulatory clarity. See Weyerhaeuser Co. 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057–58 (D.C. 

Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal 

case-by-case enforcement discretion 

approach is adequate); but see Marathon 

Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272–73 

(9th Cir. 1977) (requiring a more 

formalized approach to consideration of 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’). Under the EPA’s regulatory 

affirmative defense provisions, if a 

source could demonstrate in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding that it had 

met the requirements of the affirmative 

defense in the regulation, civil penalties 

would not be assessed. Recently, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit vacated 

such an affirmative defense in one of the 

EPA’s Section 112(d) regulations. NRDC 

v. EPA, No. 10–1371 (D.C. Cir. April 18, 

2014) 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7281 

(vacating affirmative defense provisions 

in Section 112(d) rule establishing 

emission standards for Portland cement 

kilns). The court found that the EPA 

lacked authority to establish an 

affirmative defense for private civil suits 

and held that under the CAA, the 

authority to determine civil penalty 

amounts lies exclusively with the 

courts, not the EPA. Specifically, the 

Court found: ‘‘As the language of the 

statute makes clear, the courts 

determine, on a case-by-case basis, 

whether civil penalties are 

‘appropriate.’’’ See NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *21 (‘‘[U]nder this 

statute, deciding whether penalties are 

‘appropriate’ in a given private civil suit 

is a job for the courts, not EPA.’’).4 In 

light of NRDC, the EPA is not including 

a regulatory affirmative defense 

provision in this rulemaking. As 

explained above, if a source is unable to 

comply with emissions standards as a 

result of a malfunction, the EPA may 

use its case-by-case enforcement 

discretion to provide flexibility, as 

appropriate. Further, as the DC Circuit 

recognized, in an EPA or citizen 

enforcement action, the court has the 

discretion to consider any defense 

raised and determine whether penalties 

are appropriate. Cf. NRDC, 2014 U.S. 

App. LEXIS 7281 at *24. (arguments 

that violations were caused by 

unavoidable technology failure can be 

made to the courts in future civil cases 

when the issue arises). The same logic 

applies to EPA administrative 

enforcement actions. 

D. How did the EPA evaluate additional 

changes for the grain elevator NSPS? 

As summarized in section IV of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions to 

three provisions in subpart DD to clarify 

applicability of the standards for grain 

elevators under subpart DD. These 

proposed revisions are intended to keep 

the meaning and intent of the 

definitions as originally promulgated 

while making the definitions applicable 

to the changes in the industry since the 

last review of subpart DD in 1984. The 

same clarifications are being proposed 

in subpart DDa. These proposed 

clarifications would apply to all affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification or reconstruction after 

August 3, 1978 (i.e., all affected 

facilities under both subpart DD and 

proposed subpart DDa). None of these 

clarifications would increase the cost of 

the rule or result in a change in PM 

emissions. 

1. Revision to the Definition of ‘‘Grain 

Unloading Station’’ 

We are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘grain unloading station’’ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to clarify which components of the 

unloading station are part of the affected 

facility. 

The background information 

document (BID) (EP–450/2–77–001a) for 

the original grain elevator NSPS does 

not define each piece of equipment 

included in the term ‘‘grain unloading 

station’’. However, throughout the BID, 

in the description of the grain elevator 

emission sources and processes in 

chapter 2, and in Figures 2–2 through 2– 

4, and Figures 4–1 through 4–4, the 

unloading process is described and 

shown to terminate at a hopper. Grain 

is then transported from the hopper via 

a conveyor to a bucket elevator. Based 

on the information in the BID, we 

concluded that at the time the NSPS 

was proposed and later finalized, the 

standard practice of the grain elevator 

industry was to have the hopper be the 

ending piece of equipment at the truck, 

rail, and barge/ship unloading stations. 

We received information from the grain 

elevator industry that since the last 

review of subpart DD in 1984, some 

grain unloading stations no longer use a 

hopper as the end of the unloading 

station, and instead use another storage 

unit, or transfer grain directly onto the 

grain conveyor. Industry white papers 

that serve as the basis for this 

conclusion can be found at Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

Because of these changes, we are 

proposing to better define the outer 

boundaries of a ‘‘grain unloading 

station’’ where the termination point of 

the unloading operation is not a hopper. 

The NSPS and the BID also do not 

specify the types of equipment included 

in grain unloading stations, resulting in 

the boundaries of the ‘‘unloading 

station’’ affected facilities being unclear 

to the regulated community. We 

received input from the grain industry 

on the types of equipment that are 

included in the ‘‘grain unloading 

station’’. Consequently, we are also 

proposing to clarify in the definition all 

the types of equipment involved in 

unloading, up to the point that the grain 

is transferred to either storage or to grain 

handling operations. Industry white 

papers that serve as the basis for this 

conclusion can be found at Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

We are therefore proposing revisions 

to the definition of ‘‘grain unloading 

station’’ to clarify that a ‘‘grain 

unloading station’’ encompasses the 

portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, 

barge or ship to a receiving hopper, or 

to the grain handling equipment that 

connects the unloading station to the 

rest of the grain elevator. This definition 

includes all of the equipment, support 

structures and associated dust control 

equipment and aspiration systems 

required to operate or are otherwise 

connected to the grain unloading 

station. We are requesting comment on 

our interpretation of the intent of the 

original NSPS definition of ‘‘grain 

unloading station’’ and our proposed 

revisions to the definition. 

2. Revision to Definition of ‘‘Grain 

Loading Station’’ 

We are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘grain loading station’’ to 

clarify all the types of equipment 

involved in unloading, up to the point 

that the grain is transferred to either 

storage or to grain handling operations. 

As discussed in section V.D.1 of this 

preamble, the background information 

document (BID) (EP–450/2–77–001a) for 

the original grain elevator NSPS does 

not define each piece of equipment 

included in the term ‘‘grain loading 

station’’. Because the NSPS and the BID 

do not specify the types of equipment 

included in grain unloading stations, 

the boundaries of the ‘‘grain loading 

station’’ affected facilities are unclear to 

the regulated community. We also 

received input from the grain industry 

on the types of equipment that are 

included in the ‘‘grain loading station’’. 

Consequently, we are proposing to 

clarify in the definition all the types of 

equipment involved in loading. Industry 

white papers that serve as the basis for 

this conclusion can be found at Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

The proposed revision also maintains 

consistency with the proposed revision 

to the definition of ‘‘grain unloading 

station’’. These changes are supported 

by representatives of the grain elevator 

industry in their white papers. 

3. Revision to the Operating 

Requirements for Barge and Ship 

Unloading Stations 

Current § 60.302(d)(1) requires that 

the unloading leg be enclosed from the 

top, including the receiving hopper, to 

the center line of the bottom pulley. 

However, not all barge and ship 

unloading stations currently use a 

hopper. More recently, new 

technologies have been developed such 

that a hopper is not required. We are 

proposing to revise § 60.302(d)(1) to 

clarify the provision for affected barge 

and ship unloading stations for which 

aspiration of the casing provides dust 

control at the boot of the conveyor and 

a receiving hopper is not used. The 

proposed revision clarifies that, in such 

cases, the unloading leg is required to be 

enclosed from the top to the center line 

of the bottom pulley and ventilation to 

a control device is required to be 

maintained on both sides of the leg. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy and Economic Impacts of These 

Proposed Standards 

In setting standards, the CAA requires 

us to consider emission control 

approaches, taking into account the 

estimated costs and emission 

reductions, as well as impacts on 

energy, solid waste and other effects. 

A. What are the impacts for subpart 

DDa? 

The cost, environmental and 

economic impacts presented in this 

section are expressed as incremental 

differences between the impacts of grain 

elevators complying with the proposed 

subpart DDa and the current NSPS 

requirements of subpart DD. The 

impacts are presented for future grain 

elevators that are projected to 

commence construction, reconstruction 

or modification over the 5 years 

following proposal of the revised NSPS. 

Costs are based on 2012 dollars. The 

analyses and the documents referenced 

below can be found at Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

In order to estimate the incremental 

impacts of the proposed subpart DDa 

requirements, we first identified the 

potential scenarios where grain 

elevators may be constructed, 

reconstructed or modified and subject to 

subpart DDa. Seven different scenarios 

were identified and are summarized in 

Table 4 of this preamble. 

TABLE 4—SCENARIOS USED TO ESTIMATE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SUBPART DDA REQUIREMENTS

Scenario Description 

1a ................................. Greenfield grain elevator with capacity (based on permanent storage only) > DDa cutoffs. 

1b ................................. Greenfield grain elevator with capacity > DDa cutoffs due to TSF capacity. 

2 ................................... Existing grain elevator with capacity < DDa cutoffs, but then adds TSF capacity and exceeds cutoffs. 

3 ................................... Existing grain elevator with capacity < DDa cutoffs, but then adds permanent storage capacity and exceeds cutoffs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39259 

TABLE 4—SCENARIOS USED TO ESTIMATE IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SUBPART DDA REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Scenario Description 

4 ................................... Existing grain elevator with capacity > DDa cutoffs, but then adds TSF capacity. 

5 ................................... Existing grain elevator with capacity > DDa cutoffs, but then adds permanent storage capacity. 

6 ................................... Existing grain elevator with capacity > DDa cutoffs, and does modification or reconstruction. 

We then estimated the number of 

potential grain elevators, and affected 

facilities within grain elevators, that 

would incur an incremental cost and 

emission reduction for each scenario. 

The estimates were developed by 

reviewing responses to a 2009 CAA 

section 114 survey and extrapolating the 

results over the next 5 years. For further 

detail on the methodology of these 

calculations, see the memorandum, 

‘‘Impacts of Grain Elevator NSPS 

Review,’’ at Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

The requirements in the proposed 

subpart DDa that differ from subpart DD 

are a revised applicability determination 

by incorporating TSF capacity, control 

of affected facilities associated with 

TSFs, annual opacity testing for affected 

facilities, PM testing every 60 months 

for affected facilities, weekly visual 

inspection of affected facilities, 

inspection of fabric filters and 

baghouses every 6 months, new 

recordkeeping requirements, reporting 

in ERT, a new opacity limit for wire 

screen column dryers and a new opacity 

limit for barge unloading stations using 

an en-masse conveyor system. These 

proposed requirements would be 

incurred only by affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014 (i.e., 

they would not be incurred by all 

affected facilities at a grain elevator). 

Barge unloading stations using an enmasse conveyor and wire screen column 

dryers are not expected to incur a cost 

or emissions impact because data 

collected indicate that sources should 

be able to meet the standards without 

additional controls. Particulate matter 

testing every 5 years for affected 

facilities would occur outside of the 5- 

year period analyzed because most 

construction, reconstructions and 

modifications for grain elevators are 

expected to occur after the first or 

second year following promulgation. 

The cost for Method 5 PM testing is 

contained in the memorandum, 

‘‘Impacts of Grain Elevator NSPS 

Review,’’ at Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0706. Based on 

information provided in the responses 

to the 2009 survey, including permits, 

we believe grain elevators are already 

keeping the records that we are 

proposing in subpart DDa, except for 

those associated with visual monitoring. 

The only incremental cost estimated for 

subpart DDa would be for control of 

affected facilities using fixed equipment 

associated with TSFs, initial testing at 

affected facilities that meet the subpart 

DDa applicability criteria due to TSFs, 

annual opacity testing at affected 

facilities, weekly visual inspection of 

affected facilities, inspection of fabric 

filters for affected facilities every 6 

months, the recordkeeping associated 

with visual monitoring and inspections, 

and reporting in ERT. Eighty-eight grain 

elevators, with 221 affected facilities, 

are projected to be subject to the NSPS 

in the next 5 years, in one of the seven 

scenarios, because they will construct, 

reconstruct or modify an affected 

facility. Table 5 summarizes the costs of 

this action. Capital costs are estimated 

to be $1,087,000 to comply with the 

proposed requirements. We estimate 

that the total increase in nationwide 

annual costs for the 221 affected 

facilities at 88 grain elevators is 

$1,116,000 for the number of affected 

facilities that are projected to be 

constructed, reconstructed or modified 

by the fifth year following promulgation 

of subpart DDa. Recordkeeping and 

reporting annual costs are estimated to 

be $83,000 for the number of affected 

facilities that are projected to be 

constructed, reconstructed or modified 

by the third year following 

promulgation of subpart DDa. We 

determined that the projected 

compliance costs are reasonable as they 

are not expected to result in a 

significant market impact, whether they 

are passed on to the purchaser or 

absorbed by firms. Incremental 

emissions reductions of PM10 for 

complying with subpart DDa using a 

fabric filter are estimated to be 31 tpy. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS OF THE PROPOSED SUBPART DDa FOR NEW, MODIFIED AND RECONSTRUCTED

AFFECTED SOURCES AT GRAIN ELEVATORS

Requirement Capital cost 

($ thousand) 

Annual Cost a

($ thousand/yr) 

PM control .................................................................................................................................................... 1,087 350 

Emissions testing and monitoring/reporting and recordkeeping ................................................................. 0 849 

Total nationwide ................................................................................................................................... 1,087 1,116 

aFor the third year after promulgation, the associated annual cost (including annualized PM control cost and emissions testing and monitoring) 

is $757,000. 

In addition to reducing emissions, 

there are several benefits to today’s 

proposed rulemakings. The proposed 

subpart DDa rule eliminates the startup, 

shutdown and malfunction exemption. 

The removal of SSM is meant to ensure 

continuous compliance with the final 

standards. The rule establishes a 5-year 

repeat emissions testing requirement. 

The repeat testing requirement was 

established in a way that minimizes the 

costs for testing and reporting while still 

providing the source and the agency the 

necessary information needed to ensure 

continuous compliance with the final 

standards. We are adding a requirement 

for electronic submittal of performance 

test data. This simplifies submittal for 

affected sources and having such data 

publicly available enhances 

transparency and accountability through 

better public access to pollution control 

data. 

B. What are the secondary impacts for 

subpart DDa? 

We do not expect any indirect or 

secondary incremental air quality 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

impacts associated with subpart DDa. 

No additional control technologies or 

operating standards are necessary to 

comply with the new proposed 

standards for barge unloading stations 

and wire screen column dryers. 

Additional solid waste impacts due to 

controlling total PM emissions from 

grain sent to TSFs are estimated to be 

116 tpy. Energy impacts are estimated to 

be negligible. 

C. What are the economic impacts for 

subpart DDa? 

The total costs associated with 

subpart DDa’s proposed control 

requirements and testing and 

monitoring requirements are $1.11 

million over five years for the total 

number of affected facilities that are 

projected to be constructed, 

reconstructed or modified by the fifth 

year following promulgation. 

The EPA also performed a screening 

analysis for impacts on all affected 

small entities by comparing compliance 

costs to average sales revenues. This is 

known as the cost-to-revenue or cost-tosales ratio, or the ‘‘sales test.’’ The use 

of a ‘‘sales test’’ for estimating small 

business impacts for a rulemaking is 

consistent with guidance offered by the 

EPA on compliance with SBREFA and 

is consistent with guidance published 

by the U.S. SBA’s Office of Advocacy 

that suggests that cost as a percentage of 

total revenues is a metric for evaluating 

cost increases on small entities in 

relation to increases on large entities. 

These projected compliance costs are 

reasonable as they are not expected to 

result in a significant market impact, 

whether they are passed on to the 

purchaser or absorbed by firms. The 

small business screening analysis 

results indicated that approximately 

98% of all affected small facilities 

would have a cost-to-sales ratio of less 

than 1%, with a minimum cost-to-sales 

ratio of less than 1%, an average costto-sales ratio of less than 1%, and a 

maximum cost-to-sales ratio of 2.4%. 

The small business screening analysis 

results indicated that the NSPS for 

Grain Elevators will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

(SISNOSE). 

VII. Other Considerations 

Executive Order 13563: Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review 

Executive Order 13563, Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, 

requires federal agencies to ‘‘. . . review 

existing rules that may be outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 

expand, or repeal them in accordance 

with what has been learned.’’ A 

coalition representing the grain elevator 

industry submitted a petition for the 

EPA to review and repeal the existing 

NSPS for grain elevators in 40 CFR part 

60, subpart DD. In considering the 

directives of the Executive Order and 

the coalition petition, the EPA 

conducted several analyses aimed at 

determining the effectiveness of the 

existing subpart DD standard, 

determining whether the standard is 

still relevant and determining whether 

the standard was excessively 

burdensome. The analyses and results 

are discussed in detail in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Evaluation of Grain 

Elevator Emission Standards in 

Response to Executive Order 13563,’’ in 

the grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0706. 

To address questions on the necessity 

and value of the standard, the 

effectiveness of subpart DD in reducing 

emissions was evaluated. Since the 

development of the original standard, 

the EPA has focused PM emission 

control programs on limiting direct 

emissions of PM10 (the smaller size 

fraction of PM) rather than total PM. As 

a result, we analyzed the effectiveness 

of the NSPS for controlling PM10. Three 

scenarios were assessed: (1) Emissions 

assuming no regulatory requirements 

(no subpart DD or state rules), (2) 

emissions assuming compliance with 

the subpart DD standards, and (3) 

emissions assuming no subpart DD, but 

with state rules in place. A comparison 

between these three scenarios indicates 

how effective subpart DD is in 

controlling PM10 and whether repeal of 

the standard could potentially effect 

emissions, considering state rules for 

PM that are in place. 

As a first step in the analyses, we 

assembled a database of grain elevators 

from: (1) Responses to a 2009 CAA 

section 114 survey sent to grain 

elevators; (2) information gathered from 

state regulatory agencies and (3) 

information gathered from the EPA’s 

OECA and from the USDA FSA. 

Uncontrolled PM10 emissions from this 

population of grain elevators in the 

dataset were estimated using emission 

factors from EPA’s AP–42 document. 

Emissions after compliance with 

subpart DD were estimated based on the 

typical controls that facilities use to 

comply with the standards. In order to 

assess whether state requirements are as 

protective as subpart DD, we reviewed 

the PM10 control requirements in the 12 

states with the highest grain storage. 

These states are Iowa, Illinois, 

Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Ohio, 

Texas, Missouri and Wisconsin. The 

review evaluated how each state 

implemented subpart DD and also 

evaluated state regulations controlling 

PM10, opacity and fugitive dust 

emissions that may be applicable to 

grain elevators. 

We concluded that the NSPS achieves 

a substantial emission reduction 

(approximately 85,000 tpy) of PM10 in 

these states and significantly less 

emission reduction would be achieved 

if subpart DD were to be rescinded and 

only the requirements in state rules 

were applicable. The state PM rules that 

are applicable to grain elevators are in 

most cases significantly less stringent 

than the NSPS. 

To assess whether the subpart DD 

standards are still relevant, grain 

production projections from the USDA 

were evaluated to determine if crop 

production is expected to increase in 

the future and consequently increase the 

demand for grain storage. The USDA 

provides crop production projections 

from 2010 through 2021 for corn, 

sorghum, barley, oats, wheat, rice and 

soybeans, which are the typical crops 

stored at grain elevators. A review of the 

projections shows that production of 

wheat, sorghum, oats and rice is 

expected to remain unchanged or 

decrease between 2010 and 2015, and 

between 2010 and 2021. The production 

of corn, soybeans and barley is expected 

to increase during these time intervals. 

The increases in corn, soybeans and 

barley offset the decreases in the other 

grains and total production of grain is 

projected to increase by 1.46 billion 

bushels (7.7 percent) by 2015, and 2.79 

billion bushels (14.8 percent) by 2021. 

A review also was conducted to 

identify if any new grain elevators have 

been constructed in the last 5 years. We 

found that over the past 5 years three 

grain elevators with capacities greater 

than 2.5 million bushels have been 

constructed and would likely be subject 

to subpart DD. The results of the search 

show that grain elevators are continuing 

to be constructed. Based on the pattern 

of information in the survey responses 

and other information collection, some 

are replacements for facilities that were 

shutdown and some are completely new 

facilities. Given the high crop 

production, excepting the 2012 drought 

year, many units added capacity, either 

as permanent or temporary storage, if a 

new greenfield facility was not 

constructed. It is not known how many 

of these grain elevators with increased 

capacity are subject to subpart DD. 

While it cannot be determined how 

many new grain elevators will be 

constructed in the future, or whether 

capacities at existing facilities will be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39261 

increased, the projections show that 

there will be a significant increase in the 

demand for grain storage. Based on 

activities of the previous years in the 

grain elevator industry, a combination 

of new elevators and increased 

capacities for existing elevators is 

expected. 

To address whether the standard is 

overly burdensome, we reviewed the 

cost of complying with the subpart DD 

standards. Grain elevators meet the PM 

emission limit using fabric filters. Fabric 

filters are also routinely used for dust 

control for health and safety reasons 

(e.g., prevent fugitive dust explosions); 

fabric filters that are used for health and 

safety will meet the NSPS requirements. 

Therefore, for most affected facilities, 

the specific cost that is associated only 

with subpart DD is compliance testing. 

Subpart DD requires only an initial 

Method 5 test for PM and an initial 

Method 9 test for opacity. The cost for 

each initial Method 5 PM test is $12,200 

and each initial Method 9 opacity test 

is $2,500. Annualized over 5 years, the 

costs are $3,000 and $610, respectively. 

There are no monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for subpart 

DD. Based on an evaluation of these 

one-time costs associated with 

compliance, the EPA concluded that the 

subpart DD standards do not impose an 

excessive burden on grain elevators. 

Based on the results of these analyses, 

the EPA concluded that the subpart DD 

standards are still effective, relevant and 

not excessively burdensome. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2001). 

As described in section VII., the EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

costs and benefits associated with this 

action. This analysis is contained in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Estimated Impacts of 

Revisions to the Grain Elevator NSPS’’ 

in the grain elevator docket at EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0706. The total cost of the 

revisions to the NSPS is estimated to be 

$0.22 million per year over the next 5 

years, totaling $1.11 million in the fifth 

year. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The ICR document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 2497.01 for 40 CFR 

part 60, subpart DDa. 

The operating, monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements in this 

proposed rule would be based on the 

information collection requirements in 

CAA section 111, the EPA’s NSPS 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart A), as well as state operating 

permits. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements in the General 

Provisions are mandatory pursuant to 

CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 

information other than emission data 

submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

information collection requirements for 

which a claim of confidentiality is made 

is treated according to CAA section 

114(c) and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual average burden associated 

with the proposed revisions to NSPS 

requirements is estimated to involve 

3,300 labor hours at $110,000 and 

operation and maintenance costs of 

$265,000. The annual average burden 

for the designated administrator is 

estimated to involve 810 labor hours at 

$54,000. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after July 9, 

2014, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by August 8, 2014. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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 Procedures 

Act or any other statute unless the 

agency certifies that the proposed rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations and 

small government jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the SBA’s 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The small entities directly 

regulated by this proposed rule are 

small grain elevators, cooperative 

elevators and small grain processors. We 

have determined that 2 percent of all 

affected small grain elevators, or two 

facilities, may experience an impact in 

total revenue of 2 percent. 

Although the proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

the EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce 

the impact of this rule on small entities 

by minimizing testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements to be only those essential 

to assuring compliance with the NSPS. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any 1 year. 

While there are hundreds of grain 

elevators in use, the new testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements of subpart DDa 

apply only to new affected facilities that 

commence construction on or after July 

9, 2014. The EPA projects that only 88 

grain elevators will be subject to the 

new requirements, and based on the 

burden estimate, believes the costs to be 

minimal. Thus, this rule is not subject 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to the requirements of sections 202 or 

205 of UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Grain elevators are not operated by 

government entities. 

E. 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposed 

action will not impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on state or local 

governments and will not preempt state 

law. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this action. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and state and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from state and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; November 

9, 2000). The EPA is not aware of any 

grain elevators owned or operated by 

Indian tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

The EPA specifically solicits 

comments from tribal officials on any 

potential impact on tribes from this 

proposed action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 22, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on an analysis of the degree of emission 

reduction that is achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emissions reduction, as provided in 

CAA section 111. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA of 1995, 

Public Law No. 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use (voluntary 

consensus standards) VCS in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the agency decides 

not to use available and applicable VCS. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. We conducted 

searches for Performance Standards for 

Grain Elevators (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts DD and DDa) through the 

enhanced National Standards Service 

Network database managed by the 

ANSI. We also contacted VCS 

organizations and accessed and 

searched their databases. Searches were 

conducted for EPA Methods 5 and 9 of 

40 CFR part 60, Appendix A. During the 

search, if the title or abstract (if 

provided) of the VCS described 

technical sampling and analytical 

procedures that are similar to the EPA’s 

reference method, we considered it as a 

potential equivalent method. All 

potential standards were reviewed to 

determine the practicality of the VCS for 

this rule. This review requires 

significant method validation data 

which meets the requirements of EPA 

Method 301 for accepting alternative 

methods or scientific, engineering and 

policy equivalence to procedures in 

EPA reference methods. We may 

reconsider determinations of 

impracticality when additional 

information is available for particular 

VCS. 

One VCS was identified as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA test 

methods for the purpose of this rule. 

The VCS ASTM D7520–09, ‘‘Standard 

Test Method for Determining the 

Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor 

Ambient Atmosphere’’ is an acceptable 

alternative to Method 9 if operated 

under specific conditions, documented 

in the memorandum, ‘‘Voluntary 

Consensus Standard Results for 

Performance Standards for Grain 

Elevators (40 CFR Part 60, Subparts DD 

and DDa)’’, in the grain elevator docket 

in EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0706. The 

search identified five VCS that were 

potentially applicable for this rule in 

lieu of EPA reference methods. After 

reviewing the available standards, EPA 

determined that five candidate VCS 

(ASME B133.9–1994 (2001), ISO 

9096:1992 (2003), ANSI/ASME PTC– 

38–1980 (1985), ASTM D3685/D3685M– 

98 (2005), CAN/CSA Z223.1–M1977) 

identified for measuring emissions of 

pollutants or their surrogates subject to 

emission standards in the rule would 

not be practical due to lack of 

equivalency, documentation, validation 

data and other important technical and 

policy considerations. The EPA 

welcomes comments on this aspect of 

the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable VCS and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on EJ. Its main 

provision directs federal agencies, to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make EJ part of 

their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies and activities 

on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United 

States. 

The EPA has concluded that it is not 

feasible to determine whether there 

would be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from the 

proposal of this rule because it is 

unknown where new facilities will be 

located and the EPA does not have 

specific location information for sources 

that would be affected by this NSPS. 

The agency is seeking comment on the 

location of sources covered by the 

proposed standards and on the potential 

impacts of this rule on minority, low 

income and indigenous populations. 

The additional information that will be 

collected from the increase in testing 

requirements is expected to better 

inform the agency of the emissions 

associated with this source category and 

their significance, and will ensure better 

compliance with the proposed rule, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39263 

thus will result in the proposed rule 

being more protective of human health. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: June 27, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart DD—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Section 60.300 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 60.300 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section which commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after August 3, 1978, and 

on or before July 9, 2014, is subject to 

the requirements of this part. 

■ 3. Section 60.301 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (j) and (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.301 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(j) Grain unloading station means that 

portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from a truck, railcar, 

barge, or ship to a receiving hopper or 

to the grain handling equipment that 

connects the unloading station to the 

rest of the grain elevator. A grain 

unloading station includes all of the 

equipment, support structures, and 

associated dust control equipment and 

aspiration systems required to operate 

or otherwise connected to the grain 

unloading station. 

(k) Grain loading station means that 

portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from the elevator to 

a truck, railcar, barge, or ship. A grain 

loading station includes all of the 

equipment, support structures, and 

associated dust control equipment and 

aspiration systems required to operate 

or otherwise connected to the grain 

loading station. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 60.302 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.302 Standard for particulate matter. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) The unloading leg shall be 

enclosed from the top (including the 

receiving hopper) to the center line of 

the bottom pulley and ventilation to a 

control device shall be maintained on 

both sides of the leg and the grain 

receiving hopper. Where aspiration of 

the casing provides dust control at the 

boot of the conveyor and a receiving 

hopper is not used, the unloading leg 

must be enclosed from the top to the 

center line of the bottom pulley and 

ventilation to a control device must be 

maintained on both sides of the leg. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add Subpart DDa, consisting of 

60.300a through 60.307a, to part 60 to 

read as follows: 

Subpart DDa—Standards of Performance 

for Grain Elevators for Which Construction, 

Reconstruction, or Modification 

Commenced After July 9, 2014 

Sec. 

60.300a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

60.301a Definitions. 

60.302a Standard for particulate matter. 

60.303a Test methods and procedures. 

60.304a Monitoring requirements. 

60.305a Recordkeeping requirements. 

60.306a Reporting requirements. 

60.307a Modifications. 

Subpart DDa—Standards of 

Performance for Grain Elevators for 

Which Construction, Reconstruction, 

or Modification Commenced After July 

9, 2014 

§ 60.300a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart 

apply to each affected facility at any 

grain terminal elevator or any grain 

storage elevator, except as provided 

under § 60.304a(b). The affected 

facilities are each truck unloading 

station, truck loading station, barge and 

ship unloading station, barge and ship 

loading station, railcar loading station, 

railcar unloading station, grain dryer, 

and all grain handling operations. 

(b) Any facility under paragraph (a) of 

this section that commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction after July 9, 2014 is 

subject to the requirements of this part. 

§ 60.301a Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act and in 

subpart A of this part. 

(a) Capture system means all of the 

equipment, such as sheds, hoods, ducts, 

fans, dampers, etc., used to collect 

particulate matter generated by an 

affected facility at a grain elevator. 

(b) Column dryer means any 

equipment used to reduce the moisture 

content of grain in which the grain 

flows from the top to the bottom in one 

or more continuous packed columns 

between two perforated metal sheets. 

(c) En-masse drag conveyor means a 

device that uses paddles or flights 

mounted on a chain to remove grain 

from a barge or ship. 

(d) Fugitive emission means the 

particulate matter which is not collected 

by a capture system and is released 

directly into the atmosphere from an 

affected facility at a grain elevator. 

(e) Grain means corn, wheat, 

sorghum, rice, rye, oats, barley, and 

soybeans. 

(f) Grain elevator means any plant or 

installation at which grain is unloaded, 

handled, cleaned, dried, stored, or 

loaded. 

(g) Grain handling operations include 

bucket elevators or legs (excluding legs 

used to unload barges or ships), scale 

hoppers and surge bins (garners), turn 

heads, scalpers, cleaners, trippers, and 

the headhouse and other such 

structures. 

(h) Grain loading station means that 

portion of a grain elevator where the 

grain is transferred from the elevator to 

a truck, railcar, barge, or ship. A grain 

loading station includes all of the 

equipment, support structures, and 

associated dust control equipment and 

aspiration systems required to operate 

or otherwise connected to the grain 

loading station. 

(i) Grain storage elevator means any 

grain elevator located at any wheat flour 

mill, wet corn mill, dry corn mill 

(human consumption), rice mill, or 

soybean oil extraction plant which has 

a permanent grain storage capacity of 

35,200 m3 (ca. 1 million bushels). 

(j) Grain terminal elevator means any 

grain elevator which has a permanent 

storage capacity of more than 88,100 m3

(ca. 2.5 million U.S. bushels), except 

those located at animal food 

manufacturers, pet food manufacturers, 

cereal manufacturers, breweries, and 

livestock feedlots. 

(k) Grain unloading station means 

that portion of a grain elevator where 

the grain is transferred from a truck, 

railcar, barge, or ship to a receiving 

hopper or to the grain handling 

equipment that connects the unloading 

station to the rest of the grain elevator. 

A grain unloading station includes all of 

the equipment, support structures, and 

associated dust control equipment and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

39264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

aspiration systems required to operate 

or otherwise connected to the grain 

unloading station. 

(l) Permanent storage capacity means 

the grain storage capacity calculated as 

specified in either paragraph (l)(1) or 

(l)(2) of this section, as applicable. 

(1) Grain throughput and grain 

storage capacity are known. If all of the 

grain storage buildings, bins and silos 

associated with the grain elevator 

existed prior to the date of construction, 

modification, or reconstruction of the 

affected facility, then use Equation 1 of 

this subpart to calculate permanent 

storage capacity. 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Tp = Maximum annual throughput of grain 

for all buildings, bins (excluding TSFs) 

and silos used to store grain (bushels per 

year) over the previous 5 years. 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all temporary 

storage facilities used to store grain 

(bushels). 

(2) Grain throughput and grain 

storage capacity are not known. If any 

one of the grain storage buildings, bins 

or silos associated with the grain 

elevator did not exist prior to the date 

of construction, modification, or 

reconstruction of the affected facility, 

then use Equation 2 of this subpart to 

calculate permanent storage capacity. 

Ctp = Cp + (0.34 * Ct) (Eq. 2) 

Where: 

Ctp = Total permanent storage capacity of all 

buildings, bins (including TSFs) and 

silos used to store grain (bushels). 

Cp = Total storage capacity of all buildings, 

bins (excluding TSFs) and silos used to 

store grain (bushels). 

Ct = Total storage capacity of all temporary 

storage facilities used to store grain 

(bushels). 

0.34 = Default ratio of permanent grain 

storage capacity to annual throughput. 

(m) Portable equipment include (but 

are not limited to) portable augers, 

portable conveyors and front-end 

loaders that are not fixed at any one spot 

and can be moved around the site. 

(n) Process emission means the 

particulate matter which is collected by 

a capture system. 

(o) Rack dryer means any equipment 

used to reduce the moisture content of 

grain in which the grain flows from the 

top to the bottom in a cascading flow 

around rows of baffles (racks). 

(p) Railcar means railroad hopper car 

or boxcar. 

(q) Temporary storage facility, or TSF, 

means any grain storage bin that: 

(1) Uses an asphalt, concrete, or other 

comparable base material; 

(2) Uses rigid, self-supporting 

sidewalls; 

(3) Provides adequate aeration; and 

(4) Provides an acceptable covering 

(e.g., tarp). 

(r) Unloading leg means a device 

which includes a bucket-type elevator 

which is used to remove grain from a 

barge or ship. 

(s) Wire screen column dryer means 

any equipment used to reduce the 

moisture content of grain in which the 

grain flows from the top to the bottom 

in one or more continuous packed 

columns between two woven wire 

screens. 

§ 60.302a Standard for particulate matter. 

(a) On and after the date of 

completing the initial performance test 

required in § 60.8, no owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere any gases which exhibit: 

(1) Greater than 0 percent opacity 

from any column dryer with column 

plate perforation exceeding 2.4 mm 

diameter (ca. 0.094 inch). 

(2) Greater than 0 percent opacity 

from any rack dryer in which exhaust 

gases pass through a screen filter coarser 

than 50 mesh. 

(3) Greater than 10 percent opacity 

from any wire screen column dryer. 

(b) On and after the date of 

completing the initial performance test 

required in § 60.8, no owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere from any affected facility 

except a grain dryer, or grain handling, 

loading, or unloading affected facilities 

at a TSF using portable equipment, any 

process emission which: 

(1) Contains particulate matter in 

excess of 0.023 g/dscm (ca. 0.01 gr/dscf). 

(2) Exhibits greater than 0 percent 

opacity. 

(c) On and after the date of 

completing the initial performance test 

required in § 60.8, no owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

shall cause to be discharged into the 

atmosphere any fugitive emission from: 

(1) Any individual truck unloading 

station, railcar unloading station, or 

railcar loading station, which exhibits 

greater than 5 percent opacity. 

(2) Any grain handling operation 

which exhibits greater than 0 percent 

opacity. 

(3) Any truck loading station which 

exhibits greater than 10 percent opacity. 

(4) Any barge or ship loading station 

which exhibits greater than 20 percent 

opacity. 

(d) The owner or operator of any barge 

or ship unloading station must meet the 

requirements specified in paragraph 

(d)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. 

(1) Barge or ship unloading operations 

using an unloading leg must operate as 

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) 

of this section. 

(i) The unloading leg must be 

enclosed from the top (including the 

receiving hopper) to the center line of 

the bottom pulley and ventilation to a 

control device must be maintained on 

both sides of the leg and the grain 

receiving hopper. Where aspiration of 

the casing provides dust control at the 

boot of the conveyor and a receiving 

hopper is not used, the unloading leg 

must be enclosed from the top to the 

center line of the bottom pulley and 

ventilation to a control device must be 

maintained on both sides of the leg. 

(ii) The total rate of air ventilated 

must be at least 32.1 actual cubic meters 

per cubic meter of grain handling 

capacity (ca. 40 ft3/bu). 

(2) On and after the date of 

completing the initial performance test 

required in § 60.8, visible emissions 

from a barge or ship unloading station 

using an en-masse drag conveyor must 

not exceed 10 percent opacity. 

(3) For barge or ship unloading 

stations not using an unloading leg or an 

en-masse drag conveyor, the owner or 

operator must use other methods of 

emission control demonstrated to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction to reduce 

emissions of particulate matter to the 

same level or less. 

(e) These standards apply at all times. 

§ 60.303a Test methods and procedures. 

(a) In conducting the performance 

tests required in § 60.8, the owner or 

operator must use as reference methods 

and procedures the test methods in 

appendix A of this part or other 

methods and procedures as specified in 

this section, except as provided in 

§ 60.8(b). Acceptable alternative 

methods and procedures are given in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(b) The owner or operator must 

determine compliance with the 

particulate matter and opacity standards 

in § 60.302a as follows: 

(1) Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 must be used to 

determine the particulate matter 

concentration and the volumetric flow 

rate of the effluent gas. The sampling 

time and sample volume for each run 

must be at least 60 minutes and 1.70 

dscm (60 dscf). The probe and filter 

holder must be operated without 

heaters. 

(2) Method 2 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–1 must be used to 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP09JY14.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 39265 

determine the ventilation volumetric 

flow rate. 

(3) Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4 and the procedures in 

§ 60.11 must be used to determine 

opacity. 

(c) The owner or operator may use the 

following as alternatives to the reference 

methods and procedures specified in 

this section: 

(1) For Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3, Method 17 at 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A–6 may be used. 

(d) Periodic performance tests must be 

conducted as specified in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–4 testing for opacity must 

be performed annually. The first 

performance test must be conducted no 

later than 12 months after the initial 

performance test required in § 60.8 of 

this part. Subsequent performance tests 

must be conducted at intervals no 

longer than 12 months following the 

previous periodic performance test. 

(2) Method 5 at 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A–3 testing for particulate 

matter concentration must be conducted 

no later than 60 months after the initial 

performance test required in § 60.8 of 

this part. Subsequent performance tests 

must be conducted at intervals no 

longer than 60 months following the 

previous periodic performance test. The 

periodic performance test results must 

be submitted according to § 60.306a. 

The performance test must be 

conducted while processing grains that 

will result in the highest PM emissions. 

§ 60.304a Monitoring requirements. 

(a) You must conduct weekly visual 

emissions checks for each affected 

facility and take corrective action for 

positive visual emissions checks. 

(b) You must conduct inspections of 

fabric filters and baghouses at each 

affected facility no later than 6 months 

after the initial performance test 

required in § 60.8 of this part. 

Subsequent inspections must be 

conducted at intervals no longer than 6 

months following the previous 

inspection. 

§ 60.305a Recordkeeping requirements. 

You must maintain the records 

specified in subpart A of this part and 

the records specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (f) of this section. 

(a) Total storage capacity and annual 

throughput of grain (bushels) for each 

building, bin (excluding TSFs), and silo 

used to store grain. 

(b) Total storage capacity for each 

TSF. 

(c) The date, time and duration of 

each event that causes an affected 

source to fail to meet an applicable 

standard; the record must list the 

affected source or equipment, an 

estimate of the volume of each regulated 

pollutant emitted over the standard for 

which the source failed to meet a 

standard, and a description of the 

method used to estimate the emissions. 

(d) Results of 6 month baghouse and 

fabric filter inspections, including any 

corrective action taken. 

(e) Weekly visual emissions checks 

and any corrective action taken as a 

result of positive visual emissions 

checks. 

(f) Results of 12 month opacity tests. 

§ 60.306a Reporting Requirements. 

(a) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 60.8) as required by this 

subpart and § 60.8, you must submit the 

results of the performance tests, and 

include the type of grain processed at 

the affected facility for which the 

performance test is being conducted, 

required by this subpart to the EPA by 

the following steps. You must use the 

EPA’s Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) 

(see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html) to document performance 

test data. You must submit the file 

package generated by ERT through the 

EPA’s Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can 

be accessed by logging in to the EPA’s 

Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://

cdx.epa.gov/). Only data collected using 

test methods supported by the ERT as 

listed on the ERT Web site are subject 

to the requirement to submit the 

performance test data electronically. 

Owners or operators who claim that 

some of the information being submitted 

for performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI) must submit 

a complete ERT file including 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph. At 

the discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, to the delegated authority 

in the format specified by the delegated 

authority. For any performance test 

conducted using test methods that are 

not listed on the ERT Web site, the 

owner or operator shall submit the 

results of the performance test to the 

Administrator at the appropriate 

address listed in § 60.4. 

(b) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each Method 9 opacity test 

required in this subpart and § 60.11, you 

must submit the results of the opacity 

tests to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address as shown in 40 CFR 

60.4. 

(c) The date, time and duration of 

each event that causes an affected 

facility to fail to meet a standard; the 

record must list the affected facility or 

equipment, an estimate of the volume of 

each regulated pollutant emitted over 

the standard for which the source failed 

to meet a standard, and a description of 

the method used to estimate the 

emissions. 

§ 60.307a Modifications. 

(a) The factor 6.5 must be used in 

place of ‘‘annual asset guidelines repair 

allowance percentage,’’ to determine 

whether a capital expenditure as 

defined by § 60.2 has been made to an 

existing facility. 

(b) The following physical changes or 

changes in the method of operation are 

not by themselves considered to be a 

modification of any existing facility: 

(1) The addition of gravity loadout 

spouts to existing grain storage or grain 

transfer bins. 

(2) The installation of automatic grain 

weighing scales. 

(3) Replacement of motor and drive 

units driving existing grain handling 

equipment. 

(4) The installation of permanent 

storage capacity with no increase in 

hourly grain handling capacity. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15868 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3