```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39241-39265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15868]

[[Page 39241]]

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

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

[[Page 39242]]

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

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:

[[Page 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 
non-air 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 start-up, 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 non-opacity 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

[[Page 39244]]

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 well-controlled 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Emission
                Requirement                  Capital cost      Annual cost  ($      reductions      Net benefit
                                             ($ thousand)     thousand/yr) \a\    (tons PM10/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM control................................           1,087                   350              31         N/A \b\
Emissions testing and monitoring/reporting               0                   849               0         N/A \b\
 and recordkeeping........................
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    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.

[[Page 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS \a\    Examples of potentially
            Category                  code         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

[[Page 39246]]

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:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Requirement (40 CFR
         Type of emissions                Affected facility          Type of standard             60.302)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process emissions..................  Truck unloading station,     PM limit..............  0.01 gr/dscf.
                                      truck loading station,
                                      barge and ship unloading
                                      station, barge and ship
                                      loading station, railcar
                                      loading station, railcar
                                      unloading station, and all
                                      grain handling operations.
                                                                  Opacity limit.........  0%.
                                     Grain dryer................  Opacity limit and       0% opacity for column
                                                                   equipment               dryers equipped with
                                                                   specification.          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     Opacity limit.........  5%.
                                      loading, railcar unloading.
                                     Barge/ship loading.........  Opacity limit.........  20%.
                                     Barge/ship unloading.......  Equipment               Marine leg enclosed
                                                                   specification.          from top to bottom of
                                                                                           leg, w/ventilation
                                                                                           flow rate of both leg
                                                                                           and receiving hopper
                                                                                           of 40 ft\3\ 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

[[Page 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Proposed revision to subpart DD
                                           for affected facilities that
 Current subpart DD provision (subpart     have commenced construction,
              DD citation)               modification, or reconstruction
                                               after August 3, 1978
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Grain unloading station'' is defined   ``Grain unloading station'' is
 to be that portion of a grain elevator   that portion of a grain
 where the grain is transferred from a    elevator where the grain is
 truck, railcar, barge or ship to a       transferred from a truck,
 receiving hopper (Sec.   60.301(j)).     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  ``Grain loading station'' is
 mean that portion of a grain elevator    that portion of a grain
 where the grain is transferred from      elevator where the grain is
 the elevator to a truck, railcar,        transferred from the elevator
 barge or ship.( Sec.   60.301(k)).       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     For affected barge or ship
 stations, the unloading leg is           unloading stations, the
 required to be enclosed from the top     requirements in Sec.   60.302
 (including the receiving hopper) to      (d)(1) remain the same except
 the center line of the bottom pulley     that a new provision is
 and ventilation to a control device is   proposed to be added to
 required to be maintained on both        clarify that where aspiration
 sides of the leg and the grain           of the casing provides dust
 receiving hopper. (Sec.   60.302         control at the boot of the
 (d)(1)).                                 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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY14.005

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

[[Page 39248]]

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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 non-attainment 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., non-fugitive 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

[[Page 39250]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Chapter 9.9.1 
Grain Elevators and Processes.
    \2\ 1978 BID, Chapter 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Oil Suppression of Particulate Matter at Grain Elevators. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-453/R-94-049. July 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,

[[Page 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 ft\3\ 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 ft\3\ 
per bushel of grain is not feasible for en-masse 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 add-on 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 site-specific 
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

[[Page 39252]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 39254]]

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:''
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY14.006

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'':

[[Page 39255]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY14.007

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 follow-on 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

[[Page 39256]]

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

[[Page 39257]]

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-by-case 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 non-
malfunctioning 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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''

[[Page 39258]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
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 en-masse 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Capital cost  ($   Annual Cost \a\
            Requirement                 thousand)       ($ thousand/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM control........................              1,087                350
Emissions testing and monitoring/                   0                849
 reporting and recordkeeping......
                                   -------------------------------------
    Total nationwide..............              1,087              1,116
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For 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

[[Page 39260]]

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-to-sales 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 
cost-to-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

[[Page 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-for-profit 
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

[[Page 39262]]

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 low-income 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

[[Page 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]

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

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

Subpart DD--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 60.300 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.
0
3. Section 60.301 is amended by revising paragraphs (j) and (k) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 60.302 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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.
* * * * *
0
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

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 m\3\ (ca. 1 million bushels).
    (j) Grain terminal elevator means any grain elevator which has a 
permanent storage capacity of more than 88,100 m\3\ (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

[[Page 39264]]

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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JY14.008

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.

Sec.  60.302a  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date of completing the initial performance 
test required in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.303a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 39265]]

determine the ventilation volumetric flow rate.
    (3) Method 9 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-4 and the procedures in 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.306a. The performance test must be conducted while 
processing grains that will result in the highest PM emissions.

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.8 of this part. Subsequent 
inspections must be conducted at intervals no longer than 6 months 
following the previous inspection.

Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.306a  Reporting Requirements.

    (a) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (defined in Sec.  60.8) as required by this subpart and Sec.  
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 Sec.  60.4.
    (b) Within 60 days after the date of completing each Method 9 
opacity test required in this subpart and Sec.  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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  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
```