Wednesday,

October 16, 2002

Part IV

Environmental 

Protection Agency

40 CFR Part 60

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed 

After October 21, 1974, and On or Before 

August 17, 1983; and Standards of 

Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc 

Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen 

Decarburization Vessels Constructed After 

August 17, 1983; Proposed Rule

64014 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–7394–3] 

RIN 2060–AJ68

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces 

Constructed After October 21, 1974, 

and On or Before August 17, 1983; and 

Standards of Performance for Steel 

Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and 

Argon-Oxygen Decarburization 

Vessels Constructed After August 17, 

1983

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

amend certain provisions in the new 

source performance standards (NSPS) 

for electric arc furnaces (EAF) 

constructed after October 21, 1974, and 

on or before August 17, 1983, and the 

NSPS for EAF constructed after August 

17, 1983. The proposed changes add 

alternative requirements for monitoring 

emissions from EAF exhausts. In 

addition, minor editorial corrections are 

being made.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before December 16, 

2002. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by November 5, 2002, a public 

hearing will be held on November 15, 

2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal 

Service, send comments (in duplicate if 

possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket 

and Information Center (6102), 

Attention Docket Number A–79–33, 

U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. In person 

or by courier, deliver comments (in 

duplicate if possible) to: Air and 

Radiation Docket and Information 

Center (6102), Attention Docket Number 

A–79–33, U.S. EPA, Room Number 

M1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20460. Effective August 27, 2002, 

send comments (in duplicate if possible) 

to: Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center (6102T), Attention 

Docket Number A–79–33, U.S. EPA, 

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

Number B108, Washington, DC 20460. 

We request that a separate copy of each 

public comment be sent to the contact 

person listed below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will be held at the new EPA 

facility complex in Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 

Docket. Docket No. A–79–33 contains 

supporting information used in 

developing the standards. The docket is 

located at the U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20460 in Room 

M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), 

and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 

5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. Effective 

August 27, 2002, the docket will be 

located at: U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room Number B108, 

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Kevin Cavender, Metals Group, 

Emission Standards Division (C439–02), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone number: (919) 541–

2364, electronic mail address: 

cavender.kevin@epa.gov.

To request a public hearing, to request 

to speak at a public hearing, or to find 

out if a public hearing will be held, 

contact Ms. Cassie Posey, Metals Group, 

Emission Standards Division (C439–02), 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

0069, electronic mail address: 

posey.cassie@epa.gov.

For information concerning 

applicability and rule determinations, 

contact your State or local permitting 

authority or the appropriate EPA 

regional office representatives.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may be 

submitted by electronic mail (e-mail) to: 

a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. Electronic 

comments must be submitted as an 

ASCII file to avoid the use of special 

characters and encryption problems and 

will also be accepted on disks in 

WordPerfect format. All comments and 

data submitted in electronic form must 

note the docket number: Docket No. A–

79–33. No confidential business 

information (CBI) should be submitted 

by e-mail. Electronic comments may be 

filed online at many Federal Depository 

Libraries. 

Commenters wishing to submit 

proprietary information for 

consideration must clearly distinguish 

such information from other comments 

and clearly label it as CBI. Send 

submissions containing such 

proprietary information directly to the 

following address, and not to the public 

docket, to ensure that proprietary 

information is not inadvertently placed 

in the docket: OAQPS Document 

Control Office (C404–02), Attention: Mr. 

Kevin Cavender, Emission Standards 

Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose 

information identified as CBI only to the 

extent allowed by the procedures set 

forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of 

confidentiality accompanies a 

submission when it is received by the 

EPA, the information may be made 

available to the public without further 

notice to the commenter. 

Public Hearing. Persons interested in 

presenting oral testimony or inquiring 

as to whether a hearing is to be held 

should contact Ms. Cassie Posey, 

telephone number: (919) 541–0069. 

Persons interested in attending the 

public hearing must also contact Cassie 

Posey to verify the time, date, and 

location of the hearing. The address, 

telephone number, and e-mail address 

for Ms. Posey are listed in the preceding 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. A public hearing, if held, will 

provide interested parties the 

opportunity to present data, views, or 

arguments concerning the proposed 

emission standards. 

Docket. The docket is an organized 

and complete file of all the information 

considered by the EPA in rule 

development. The docket is a dynamic 

file because material is added 

throughout the rulemaking process. The 

docketing system is intended to allow 

members of the public and industries 

involved to readily identify and locate 

documents so that they can effectively 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

Along with the proposed and 

promulgated standards and their 

preambles, the contents of the docket 

will serve as the record in the case of 

judicial review. (See section 

307(d)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA).) The regulatory text and other 

materials related to the rulemaking are 

available for review in the docket or 

copies may be mailed on request from 

the Air Docket by calling (202) 260–

7548. A reasonable fee may be charged 

for copying docket materials. 

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s proposed rule 

will also be available on the WWW 

through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN). Following signature, a 

copy of the proposed rule will be posted 

on the TTN’s policy and guidance page 

for newly proposed or promulgated 

rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.

The TTN provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. If more 

information regarding the TTN is 

needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 

541–5384. 

Regulated Entities. Entities potentially 

regulated by this action include steel 

manufacturing facilities who operate 

electric arc furnaces. Affected categories 

and entities include certain sources in

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 64015

the North American Information 

Classification System code 331111. 

This description is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility is regulated by this 

action, you should examine the 

applicability criteria in the rule. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background 

A. What is an EAF? 

B. What are the current NSPS requirements 

for an EAF? 

C. Why are the current NSPS requirements 

being amended? 

D. What is a bag leak detection system, and 

how is it used to monitor baghouse 

performance? 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendment 

A. What is the alternative monitoring 

option being proposed? 

B. What are the editorial corrections being 

made? 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use

I. Background 

A. What Is an EAF? 

An EAF is a metallurgical furnace 

used to produce carbon and alloy steels. 

The input material to an EAF is 

typically 100 percent scrap steel. 

Cylindrical, refractory lined EAF are 

equipped with carbon electrodes to be 

raised or lowered through the furnace 

roof. With electrodes retracted, the 

furnace roof can be rotated to permit the 

charge of scrap steel by overhead crane. 

Alloying agents and fluxing materials 

usually are added through doors on the 

side of the furnace. Electric current is 

passed between the electrodes and 

through the scrap, generating arcing and 

the generation of enough heat to melt 

the scrap steel charge. After the melting 

and refining periods, impurities (in the 

form of a slag) and the refined steel are 

poured from the furnace. 

The production of steel in an EAF is 

a batch process. Cycles, or heats, range 

from about 11⁄2 to 5 hours to produce 

carbon steel and from 5 to 10 hours to 

produce alloy steel. Scrap steel is 

charged to begin a cycle, and alloying 

agents and slag forming materials are 

added for refining. Stages of each cycle 

normally are charging, melting, refining 

(which usually includes oxygen 

blowing), and tapping. 

All of those operations generate 

particulate matter (PM) emissions. 

Emission control techniques involve an 

emission capture system and a gas 

cleaning system. Emission capture 

systems used in the industry include 

direct shell (fourth hole) evacuation, 

side draft hoods, combination hoods, 

canopy hoods, scavenger ducts, and 

furnace enclosures. Direct shell 

evacuation (DEC) consists of ductwork 

attached to a separate opening, or 

‘‘fourth hole’’, in the furnace roof which 

draws emissions to a gas cleaner. The 

direct shell evacuation system works 

only when the furnace is up-right and 

the roof is in place. The side draft hoods 

collect furnace offgases from around the 

electrode holes and the work doors after 

the gases leave the furnace. The 

combination hood incorporates 

elements from the side draft and direct 

shell evacuation systems. Canopy hoods 

and scavenger ducts are used to address 

charging and tapping emissions. 

Baghouses are typically used as the gas 

cleaning system. 

B. What Are the Current NSPS 

Requirements for an EAF? 

The NSPS for EAF constructed after 

October 21, 1974, and on or before 

August 17, 1983 (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart AA) were first promulgated in 

the Federal Register on September 23, 

1975 (40 FR 43850). The NSPS for EAF 

constructed after August 17, 1983 (40 

CFR part 60, subpart AAa) were first 

promulgated in the Federal Register on 

October 31, 1984 (49 FR 43845). Both 

subparts limit the allowable PM 

concentration in the exhaust of an EAF 

emission control device to 12 

milligrams per dry standard cubic meter 

(mg/dscm). In addition to the PM 

emission limit, both subparts limit 

visible emissions from the EAF control 

device to less than 3 percent opacity, as 

determined by EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR 

part 60, appendix A. 

In both subparts, if the control device 

is equipped with a single stack, the 

owner or operator is required to install, 

calibrate, maintain, and operate a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS). The owner and operator must 

report each 6-minute average COM 

reading of 3 percent or greater as an 

excess emission. A COMS is not 

required on any modular or multiplestack fabric filter if opacity readings are 

taken at least once per day during a 

melting and refining period, in 

accordance with EPA Method 9. 

The subparts also contain 

requirements for the EAF capture 

systems. However, those requirements 

are not being amended by today’s 

action. As such, we do not discuss the 

capture system requirements here. 

C. Why Are the Current NSPS 

Requirements Being Amended? 

Today’s action is being taken in 

response to a petition to reopen the 

NSPS that we received from the 

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), 

the Specialty Steel Industry of North 

America (SSINA), and the Steel 

Manufacturers Association (SMA), who 

jointly will be referred to as ‘‘the 

Petitioner.’’ In their request to reopen 

the EAF NSPS, the Petitioner argues that 

COMS are not capable of accurately 

monitoring opacity emissions from an 

EAF shop at the 3 percent excess 

emissions threshold level and that the 

EAF NSPS should be amended to 

address the technological shortcomings 

associated with COMS. In making their 

argument, the Petitioner points to our 

recent revision to the performance 

specification for COMS (PS–1, 65 FR 

48914) in which we acknowledge that 

there is potential for measurement error 

associated with COM readings. A 

conservative approach to estimating the 

upper range of the potential 

measurement error resulted in an 

estimate of approximately 4 percent 

opacity. The Petitioner also points out 

that the American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) Standard for 

COMS (ASTM D 6216–98), which is 

incorporated in PS–1, expressly limits 

the scope of the ASTM Standard to 

COMS used to monitor opacity subject 

to an opacity limit of 10 percent or 

greater due to the potential error 

associated with opacity measurements.

The Petitioner argues that COMS 

generate inaccurate data which can 

trigger Federal and State reporting 

requirements and expose a facility to 

potential liability even when the facility 

is meeting the opacity standard. As 

pointed out above, owners and 

operators are required by the NSPS to 

report all 6-minute average COMS 

readings above 3 percent as periods of 

excess emissions. Since the potential 

COMS measurement error is high in 

comparison to the 3 percent opacity 

64016 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

standard, the Petitioner believes that the 

COMS can and do produce readings 

above the 3 percent excess emissions 

threshold when the actual opacity is 

below 3 percent. The Petitioner points 

out that the credible evidence revisions 

(62 FR 8313, February 24, 1997) clarify 

our intent to use COMS data as evidence 

of a potential emissions violation. 

Therefore, the Petitioner argues, COMS 

data falsely indicating emissions above 

3 percent opacity could be used as 

evidence of violations of the opacity 

standard. Even if the erroneous COMS 

data are eventually determined not to be 

credible, the Petitioner argues, 

companies must bear the burden and 

cost of defending against such 

allegations. 

The revisions to PS–1 explained that 

we did not believe it was appropriate to 

limit the applicability of PS–1 based on 

the level of the emission limit that 

would be monitored. Instead of limiting 

the applicability of PS–1, we 

determined that PS–1 should 

acknowledge the measurement 

uncertainty associated with COMS 

measurements below 10 percent 

opacity, and allow for a consideration of 

the potential error (through statistical 

procedures or otherwise) when 

evaluating compliance with opacity 

standards below 10 percent. 

We agree that it is appropriate to 

provide an alternative monitoring 

option for EAF owners and operators 

who are concerned with the accuracy of 

COMS measurements at levels below 10 

percent opacity. In addition, we believe 

that bag leak detection systems, the 

alternative monitoring option being 

proposed, are a viable alternative to 

COMS for the purpose of monitoring the 

performance of baghouses. 

D. What Is a Bag Leak Detection System, 

and How Is It Used To Monitor 

Baghouse Performance? 

A bag leak detection system is a 

device that is used to measure relative 

particulate loadings in the exhaust of a 

baghouse on a continuous basis in order 

to detect bag leaks and other conditions 

that result in increases in particulate 

loadings. Bag leak detection systems 

have been developed based on a number 

of principles including triboelectric 

effect, electrodynamic effect, and light 

scattering. A bag leak detection system 

does not need to provide an output in 

terms of particulate concentration, but 

must provide an output that is 

proportionate to the particulate 

concentration such that if particulate 

concentrations increase the output from 

the bag leak detection system increases. 

A bag leak detection system identifies 

leaks by the resulting increase in 

particulate loadings. A properly 

designed baghouse will control 

particulate emissions to very low levels 

when in good operating condition. 

However, if the baghouse develops a 

leak, due to a torn bag or seal, there will 

be a measurable increase in particulate 

emissions. A bag leak detection system 

is capable of quickly (within a few 

seconds) determining that an abnormal 

increase in particulate concentrations 

has occurred and can then trigger an 

alarm to alert the operator so that the 

leak can be stopped as soon as possible. 

Bag leak detection systems are capable 

of detecting small leaks while 

particulate emissions are well below the 

levels that would result in observable 

opacity. For that reason, we believe that 

bag leak detection systems are well 

suited for monitoring the performance 

of a baghouse. 

II. Summary of Proposed Amendment 

A. What Is the Alternative Monitoring 

Option Being Proposed? 

We are proposing bag leak detection 

coupled with a once per day opacity 

observation as an alternative monitoring 

option to COMS. Under the proposed 

alternative, a facility could elect to 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

a bag leak detection system. Owners or 

operators would be required to develop 

a site specific monitoring plan 

describing how the system would be 

selected, installed, and operated, 

including how the alarm levels would 

be established. Within 30 minutes of an 

alarm, the owner or operator would be 

required to initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm and 

alleviate the cause of the alarm within 

3 hours. In addition, the owner or 

operator would be required to maintain 

and operate their baghouse such that the 

alarm on the bag leak detector does not 

alarm for more than 3 percent of the 

operating hours in any 6-month 

reporting period. 

The owner or operator would also be 

required to conduct an opacity 

observation at least once per day when 

the furnace is in the melting or refining 

operation day, in accordance with EPA 

Method 9. All opacity observations 

greater than 3 percent opacity would be 

reported as a violation of the opacity 

standard. In addition, if the alarm on the 

bag leak detection system was not 

alarming during the time the opacity 

was observed to be greater than 3 

percent, the alarm on the bag leak 

detection system would have to be 

lowered to a point that an alarm would 

have occurred during the observation. 

B. What Are the Editorial Corrections 

Being Made? 

Two typographical errors are being 

corrected in the amendment. In 40 CFR 

60.274(c) and in 40 CFR 60.274a(c), the 

references to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) 

are being corrected to refer to paragraph 

(b). The paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 40 

CFR 60.274(c) and 40 CFR 60.274a(c) 

were incorporated into paragraph (b) 

during the last revision to the NSPS (64 

FR 10105, March 2, 1999). In 40 CFR 

60.274a(b), the reference to paragraph 

(d) is being corrected to refer to 

paragraph (e).

In addition, 40 CFR 60.274a(d) and 40 

CFR 60.274a(e) are being revised to 

clarify that owners and operators may 

petition the Administrator to approve 

alternatives to the monitoring 

requirements specified in 40 CFR 

60.274a(b), as well as alternatives to the 

monthly operational status inspections 

specified in 40 CFR 60.274a(d). This 

revision does not change the rule 

requirements because owners and 

operators are currently allowed to 

petition for alternative monitoring 

requirements under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of 

the General Provisions. 

III. Administrative Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), we must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs, or the rights and 

obligation of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that the proposed rule amendments are 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

because none of the listed criteria apply 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 64017

to the action. Consequently, the action 

was not submitted to OMB for review 

under Executive Order 12866. 

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires us to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

The proposed rule amendments do 

not have federalism implications. They 

will not have substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government, as 

specified in Executive Order 13132. 

None of the affected facilities are owned 

or operated by State governments, and 

the requirements of the proposed rule 

amendments will not supercede State 

regulations that are more stringent. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to the proposed rule amendments. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with our policy to 

promote communications between us 

and State and local governments, we 

specifically solicit comments on the 

proposed rule amendments from State 

and local officials. 

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires us 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

The proposed rule amendments do 

not have tribal implications. They will 

not have substantial direct effects on 

tribal governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

No tribal governments own or operate 

an affected source. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to the 

proposed rule amendments. 

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

we must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned rule is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives that we considered. 

We interpret Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

rule. The proposed rule amendments are 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because they are based on technology 

performance and not on health or safety 

risks. No children’s risk analysis was 

performed because the action only 

provides affected EAF owners and 

operators with alternative monitoring 

options. Furthermore, the proposed rule 

amendments have been determined not 

to be ‘‘economically significant’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

we generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement is needed, section 205 of the 

UMRA generally requires us to identify 

and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule. The 

provisions of section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with 

applicable law. Moreover, section 205 

allows us to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before we establish 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, we must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of our regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements.

We have determined that the 

proposed rule amendments do not 

contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more for State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any 1 year. The 

maximum total annual cost of the 

proposed rule amendments for any year 

has been estimated to be less than 

$62,000. Thus, today’s proposed rule 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, we have 

determined that the proposed rule 

amendments contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because they contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them. 

Therefore, today’s proposed rule 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of the 

UMRA. 

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1966 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

64018 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. The 

proposed amendments will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because the 

amendments only provide alternative 

compliance options designed to provide 

facilities with increased flexibility. 

Therefore, I certify that the action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in the proposed rule 

amendments have been submitted for 

approval to OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document (ICR 

No. 1060.11), and you may obtain a 

copy from Susan Auby by mail at the 

Office of Environmental Information, 

Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA 

(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; by e-mail at 

auby.susan@epa.gov; or by calling (202) 

566–1672. You may also download a 

copy off the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/icr. The information 

requirements are not effective until 

OMB approves them. 

The information requirements are 

based on notification, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in the NSPS 

General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart A), which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to NSPS. The 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 

7414). All information submitted to us 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to our policies 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual increase to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting burden for 

the proposed rule amendments are 

estimated at 1750 labor hours at a total 

cost of $61,267 nationwide, and the 

annual average increase in burden is 

175 labor hours and $6,127 per source. 

We estimate that there will be no 

increase in the annualized capital costs 

due to the proposed rule amendments. 

We estimate that the annualized costs 

associated with purchasing and 

installing a bag leak detection system 

are equal to the offsetting annualized 

cost savings associated with the 

discontinued use and periodic 

replacement of a COMS. In making the 

estimates, it was assumed that ten 

existing facilities currently required to 

install and operate COMS would elect to 

use the proposed alternative monitoring 

option. The cost estimates reflect 

increased costs associated with the 

installation and operation of a bag leak 

detection system and with daily opacity 

observations partially offset by the cost 

savings from no longer having to operate 

and maintain a COMS. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to: Review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search existing data 

sources; complete and review the 

collection of information; and transmit 

or otherwise disclose the information. 

An Agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for our regulations are listed in 

40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. 

Comments are requested on our need 

for the information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, including through 

the use of automated collection 

techniques. Send comments on the ICR 

to the Director, Collection Strategies 

Division, U.S. EPA (2822), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; and to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; 

marked ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for 

EPA.’’ Include the ICR number in any 

correspondence. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after October 

16, 2002, a comment to OMB is best 

assured of having its full effect if OMB 

receives it by November 15, 2002. The 

final action will respond to any OMB or 

public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

H. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA) Public Law 104–

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs us to 

use voluntary consensus standards in 

our regulatory and procurement 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) developed or 

adopted by one or more voluntary 

consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs 

us to provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when an agency does not use available 

and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. The proposed rulemaking 

does not involve a technical standard. 

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

The proposed rule amendments are 

not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: October 9, 2002. 

Christine Todd Whitman, 

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended as follows:

PART 60—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Section 60.271 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (o) and (p) to 

read as follows:

§ 60.271 Definitions.

* * * * *

(o) Bag Leak detection system means 

a system that is capable of continuously 

monitoring relative particulate matter 

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a 

baghouse to detect bag leaks and other 

conditions that result in increases in 

particulate loadings. A bag leak 

detection system includes, but is not 

limited to, an instrument that operates 

on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light 

scattering, light transmittance, or other 

effect to continuously monitor relative 

particulate matter loadings. 

(p) Operating time means the period 

of time in hours that an affected source 

is in operation beginning at a startup 

and ending at the next shutdown.

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 64019

3. Section 60.273 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding new 

paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as 

follows:

§ 60.273 Emission monitoring.

* * * * *

(c) A continuous monitoring system 

for the measurement of the opacity of 

emissions discharged into the 

atmosphere from the control device(s) is 

not required on any modular, multistack, negative-pressure or positivepressure fabric filter if observations of 

the opacity of the visible emissions from 

the control device are performed by a 

certified visible emission observer; or on 

any single-stack fabric filter if visible 

emissions from the control device are 

performed by a certified visible 

emission observer and the owner 

installs and continuously operates a bag 

leak detection system according to 

paragraph (e) of this section. Visible 

emission observations shall be 

conducted at least once per day for at 

least three 6-minute periods when the 

furnace is operating in the melting and 

refining period. All visible emissions 

observations shall be conducted in 

accordance with Method 9 of appendix 

A to this part. If visible emissions occur 

from more than one point, the opacity 

shall be recorded for any points where 

visible emissions are observed. Where it 

is possible to determine that a number 

of visible emission sites relate to only 

one incident of the visible emission, 

only one set of three 6-minute 

observations will be required. In that 

case, the Method 9 observations must be 

made for the site of highest opacity that 

directly relates to the cause (or location) 

of visible emissions observed during a 

single incident. Records shall be 

maintained of any 6-minute average that 

is in excess of the emission limit 

specified in § 60.272(a).

* * * * *

(e) A bag leak detection system must 

be installed and continuously operated 

on all single-stack fabric filters if the 

owner or operator elects not to install 

and operate a continuous opacity 

monitoring system as provided for 

under paragraph (c) of this section. In 

addition, the owner or operator shall 

meet the visible emissions observation 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (8) of this section. 

(1) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or 

less.

(2) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

particulate matter loadings and the 

owner or operator shall continuously 

record the output from the bag leak 

detection system using electronic or 

other means (e.g., using a strip chart 

recorder or a data logger.) 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will sound when an increase in 

relative particulate loading is detected 

over the alarm set point established 

according to paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section, and the alarm must be located 

such that it can be heard by the 

appropriate plant personnel. 

(4) For each bag leak detection system 

required by paragraph (e) of this section, 

the owner or operator shall develop and 

submit, to the Administrator or 

delegated authority, for approval, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses 

the items identified in paragraphs 

(e)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. For 

each bag leak detection system that 

operates based on the triboelectric 

effect, the monitoring plan shall be 

consistent with the recommendations 

contained in the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency guidance document 

‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–98–015). The 

owner or operator shall operate and 

maintain the bag leak detection system 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan at all times. The plan shall 

describe: 

(i) Installation of the bag leak detector 

system; 

(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detector system including 

how the alarm set-point will be 

established; 

(iii) Operation of the bag leak 

detection system including quality 

assurance procedures; 

(iv) How the bag leak detection 

system will be maintained including a 

routine maintenance schedule and spare 

parts inventory list; and 

(v) How the bag leak detection system 

output shall be recorded and stored. 

(5) The initial adjustment of the 

system shall, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device, and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time (if applicable). 

(6) Following initial adjustment, the 

owner or operator shall not adjust the 

averaging period, alarm set point, or 

alarm delay time without approval from 

the Administrator or delegated authority 

except as provided for in paragraphs 

(e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) Once per quarter, the owner or 

operator may adjust the sensitivity of 

the bag leak detection system to account 

for seasonal effects including 

temperature and humidity according to 

the procedures identified in the sitespecific monitoring plan required under 

paragraph (e)(4) of this section. 

(ii) If opacities greater than zero 

percent are observed over four 

consecutive 15-second observations 

during the daily opacity observations 

required under paragraph (c) of this 

section and the alarm on the bag leak 

detection system does not sound, the 

owner or operator shall lower the alarm 

set point on the bag leak detection 

system to a point where the alarm 

would have sounded during the period 

when the opacity observations were 

made. 

(7) For negative pressure, induced air 

baghouses, and positive pressure 

baghouses that are discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak 

detector sensor must be installed 

downstream of the baghouse and 

upstream of any wet scrubber. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(f) For each bag leak detection system 

installed according to paragraph (e) of 

this section, the owner or operator shall 

initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of all alarms within 30 minutes of 

an alarm. The cause of the alarm must 

be alleviated within 3 hours of the time 

the alarm occurred by taking whatever 

corrective action(s) are necessary. If 

additional time is required to alleviate 

the cause of the alarm, the owner or 

operator shall notify the Administrator 

or delegated authority. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to the following: 

(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in particulate 

emissions; 

(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media; 

(3) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device; 

(4) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment; 

(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system; or 

(6) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(g) The owner or operator shall 

maintain each baghouse monitored by a 

bag leak detection system such that the 

alarm on the bag leak detection system 

does not sound for more than 3 percent 

64020 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

of the total operating time in a 6-month 

reporting period. 

(h) The percentage of time the alarm 

on a bag leak detection system sounds 

shall be determined according to 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) An alarm that occurs due solely to 

a malfunction of the bag leak detection 

system shall not be included in the 

calculation. 

(2) An alarm that occurs during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall 

not be included in the calculation if the 

owner or operator follows all 

requirements contained in § 60.11(d). 

(3) For each alarm where the owner or 

operator initiates procedures to 

determine the cause of an alarm within 

1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm 

time shall be counted. 

(4) For each alarm where the owner or 

operator does not initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm within 

1 hour of the alarm, alarm time will be 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by the owner or operator to 

initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of the alarm. 

(5) The percentage of time the alarm 

on the bag leak detection system sounds 

shall be calculated as the ratio of the 

sum of alarm times to the total operating 

time multiplied by 100. 

4. Section 60.274 is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(c) to read as follows:

§ 60.274 Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(c) When the owner or operator of an 

affected facility is required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards under § 60.272(a)(3) and at 

any other time the Administrator may 

require that (under section 114 of the 

CAA, as amended) either: the control 

system fan motor amperes and all 

damper positions; the volumetric flow 

rate through each separately ducted 

hood; or the volumetric flow rate at the 

control device inlet and all damper 

positions shall be determined during all 

periods in which a hood is operated for 

the purpose of capturing emissions from 

the affected facility subject to paragraph 

(b) of this section. * * *

* * * * *

5. Section 60.275 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:

§ 60.275 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(i) If visible emissions observations 

are made in lieu of using a continuous 

opacity monitoring system, as allowed 

for by § 60.273(c), visible emission 

observations shall be conducted at least 

once per day for at least three 6-minute 

periods when the furnace is operating in 

the melting and refining period. All 

visible emissions observations shall be 

conducted in accordance with Method 

9. If visible emissions occur from more 

than one point, the opacity shall be 

recorded for any points where visible 

emissions are observed. Where it is 

possible to determine that a number of 

visible emission sites relate to only one 

incident of the visible emission, only 

one set of three 6-minute observations 

will be required. In that case, the 

Method 9 observations must be made for 

the site of highest opacity that directly 

relates to the cause (or location) of 

visible emissions observed during a 

single incident. Records shall be 

maintained of any 6-minute average that 

is in excess of the emission limit 

specified in § 60.272(a).

* * * * *

6. Section 60.276 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to 

read as follows:

§ 60.276 Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.

* * * * *

(e) The owner or operator shall 

maintain the following records for each 

bag leak detection system required 

under § 60.273(e): 

(1) Records of the bag leak detection 

system output; 

(2) Records of bag leak detection 

system adjustments, including the date 

and time of the adjustment, the initial 

bag leak detector settings, and the final 

bag leak detector settings; 

(3) An identification of the date and 

time of all bag leak detection system 

alarms, the time that procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm were 

initiated, if procedures were initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm, the 

cause of the alarm, an explanation of the 

actions taken, the date and time the 

cause of the alarm was alleviated, and 

if the alarm was alleviated within 3 

hours of the alarm; and 

(4) The calculation of the percent of 

time the alarm on the bag leak detection 

system sounded during each 6-month 

reporting period. 

(f) In addition to the information 

required by § 60.7(c), the percent of time 

the alarm on the bag leak detection 

system sounded during each 6-month 

reporting period shall be reported to the 

Administrator semi-annually. 

7. Section 60.271(a) is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, 

definitions for ‘‘Bag leak detection 

system’’ and ‘‘Operating time’’ as 

follows:

§ 60.271a Definitions. 

Bag leak detection system means a 

system that is capable of continuously 

monitoring relative particulate matter 

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a 

baghouse to detect bag leaks and other 

conditions that result in increases in 

particulate loadings. A bag leak 

detection system includes, but is not 

limited to, an instrument that operates 

on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light 

scattering, light transmittance, or other 

effect to continuously monitor relative 

particulate matter loadings.

* * * * *

Operating time means the period of 

time in hours that an affected source is 

in operation beginning at a startup and 

ending at the next shutdown.

* * * * *

8. Section 60.273a is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) and adding new 

paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h) to read as 

follows:

§ 60.273a Emission monitoring.

* * * * *

(c) A continuous monitoring system 

for the measurement of the opacity of 

emissions discharged into the 

atmosphere from the control device(s) is 

not required on any modular, multistack, negative-pressure or positivepressure fabric filter if observations of 

the opacity of the visible emissions from 

the control device are performed by a 

certified visible emission observer; or on 

any single-stack fabric filter if visible 

emissions from the control device are 

performed by a certified visible 

emission observer and the owner 

installs and continuously operates a bag 

leak detection system according to 

paragraph (e) of this section. Visible 

emission observations shall be 

conducted at least once per day for at 

least three 6-minute periods when the 

furnace is operating in the melting and 

refining period. All visible emissions 

observations shall be conducted in 

accordance with Method 9. If visible 

emissions occur from more than one 

point, the opacity shall be recorded for 

any points where visible emissions are 

observed. Where it is possible to 

determine that a number of visible 

emission sites relate to only one 

incident of the visible emission, only 

one set of three 6-minute observations 

will be required. In that case, the 

Method 9 observations must be made for 

the site of highest opacity that directly 

relates to the cause (or location) of 

visible emissions observed during a 

single incident. Records shall be 

maintained of any 6-minute average that 

Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 64021

is in excess of the emission limit 

specified in § 60.272a(a).

* * * * *

(e) A bag leak detection system must 

be installed and continuously operated 

on all single-stack fabric filters if the 

owner or operator elects not to install 

and operate a continuous opacity 

monitoring system as provided for 

under paragraph (c) of this section. In 

addition, the owner or operator shall 

meet the visible emissions observation 

requirements in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (8) of this section. 

(1) The bag leak detection system 

must be certified by the manufacturer to 

be capable of detecting particulate 

matter emissions at concentrations of 10 

milligrams per actual cubic meter 

(0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) or 

less. 

(2) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

particulate matter loadings and the 

owner or operator shall continuously 

record the output from the bag leak 

detection system using electronic or 

other means (e.g., using a strip chart 

recorder or a data logger.) 

(3) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will sound when an increase in 

relative particulate loading is detected 

over the alarm set point established 

according to paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section, and the alarm must be located 

such that it can be heard by the 

appropriate plant personnel. 

(4) For each bag leak detection system 

required by paragraph (e) of this section, 

the owner or operator shall develop and 

submit, to the Administrator or 

delegated authority, for approval, a sitespecific monitoring plan that addresses 

the items identified in paragraphs 

(e)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. For 

each bag leak detection system that 

operates based on the triboelectric 

effect, the monitoring plan shall be 

consistent with the recommendations 

contained in the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency guidance document 

‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 

Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–98–015). The 

owner or operator shall operate and 

maintain the bag leak detection system 

according to the site-specific monitoring 

plan at all times. The plan shall describe 

the following: 

(i) Installation of the bag leak detector 

system; 

(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detector system including 

how the alarm set-point will be 

established; 

(iii) Operation of the bag leak 

detection system including quality 

assurance procedures; 

(iv) How the bag leak detection 

system will be maintained including a 

routine maintenance schedule and spare 

parts inventory list; and 

(v) How the bag leak detection system 

output shall be recorded and stored. 

(5) The initial adjustment of the 

system shall, at a minimum, consist of 

establishing the baseline output by 

adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the 

averaging period of the device, and 

establishing the alarm set points and the 

alarm delay time (if applicable). 

(6) Following initial adjustment, the 

owner or operator shall not adjust the 

averaging period, alarm set point, or 

alarm delay time without approval from 

the Administrator or delegated authority 

except as provided for in paragraphs 

(e)(6)(i) and (ii) of this section. 

(i) Once per quarter, the owner or 

operator may adjust the sensitivity of 

the bag leak detection system to account 

for seasonal effects including 

temperature and humidity according to 

the procedures identified in the sitespecific monitoring plan required under 

paragraph (e)(4) of this section. 

(ii) If opacities greater than zero 

percent are observed over four 

consecutive 15-second observations 

during the daily opacity observations 

required under paragraph (c) of this 

section and the alarm on the bag leak 

detection system does not sound, the 

owner or operator shall lower the alarm 

set point on the bag leak detection 

system to a point where the alarm 

would have sounded during the period 

when the opacity observations were 

made. 

(7) For negative pressure, induced air 

baghouses, and positive pressure 

baghouses that are discharged to the 

atmosphere through a stack, the bag leak 

detector sensor must be installed 

downstream of the baghouse and 

upstream of any wet scrubber. 

(8) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(f) For each bag leak detection system 

installed according to paragraph (e) of 

this section, the owner or operator shall 

initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of all alarms within 30 minutes of 

an alarm. The cause of the alarm must 

be alleviated within 3 hours of the time 

the alarm occurred by taking whatever 

corrective action(s) are necessary. If 

additional time is required to alleviate 

the cause of the alarm, the owner or 

operator shall notify the Administrator 

or delegated authority. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to, the following: 

(1) Inspecting the baghouse for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in particulate 

emissions; 

(2) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media. 

(3) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media, or otherwise repairing the 

control device; 

(4) Sealing off a defective baghouse 

compartment.

(5) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe, or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system; and 

(6) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(g) The owner or operator shall 

maintain each baghouse monitored by a 

bag leak detection system such that the 

alarm on the bag leak detection system 

does not sound for more than 3 percent 

of the total operating time in a 6-month 

reporting period. 

(h) The percentage of time the alarm 

on a bag leak detection system sounds 

shall be determined according to 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) An alarm that occurs due solely to 

a malfunction of the bag leak detection 

system shall not be included in the 

calculation. 

(2) An alarm that occurs during 

startup, shutdown, or malfunction shall 

not be included in the calculation if the 

owner or operator follows all 

requirements contained in § 60.11(d). 

(3) For each alarm where the owner or 

operator initiates procedures to 

determine the cause of an alarm within 

1 hour of the alarm, 1 hour of alarm 

time shall be counted. 

(4) For each alarm where the owner or 

operator does not initiate procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm within 

1 hour of the alarm, alarm time will be 

counted as the actual amount of time 

taken by the owner or operator to 

initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of the alarm. 

(5) The percentage of time the alarm 

on the bag leak detection system sounds 

shall be calculated as the ratio of the 

sum of alarm times to the total operating 

time multiplied by 100. 

9. Section 60.274a is amended by 

revising the first sentence of paragraph 

(b), revising the first sentence of 

paragraph (c), revising the first sentence 

of paragraph (d), and revising paragraph 

(e) to read as follows:

§ 60.274a Monitoring of operations.

* * * * *

(b) Except as provided under 

paragraph (e) of this section, the owner 

64022 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 16, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

or operator subject to the provisions of 

this subpart shall check and record on 

a once-per-shift basis the furnace static 

pressure (if DEC system is in use, and 

a furnace static pressure gauge is 

installed according to paragraph (f) of 

this section) and either: check and 

record the control system fan motor 

amperes and damper position on a onceper-shift basis; install calibrate, and 

maintain a monitoring device that 

continuously records the volumetric 

flow rate through each separately 

ducted hood; or install, calibrate, and 

maintain a monitoring device that 

continuously records the volumetric 

flow rate at the control device inlet and 

check and record damper positions on 

a once-per-shift basis. * * * 

(c) When the owner or operator of an 

affected facility is required to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

standards under § 60.272a(a)(3) and at 

any other time the Administrator may 

require that (under section 114 of the 

CAA, as amended) either: the control 

system fan motor amperes and all 

damper positions; the volumetric flow 

rate through each separately ducted 

hood; or the volumetric flow rate at the 

control device inlet and all damper 

positions shall be determined during all 

periods in which a hood is operated for 

the purpose of capturing emissions from 

the affected facility subject to paragraph 

(b) of this section. * * *

(d) Except as provided under 

paragraph (e) of this section, the owner 

or operator shall perform monthly 

operational status inspections of the 

equipment that is important to the 

performance of the total capture system 

(i.e., pressure sensors, dampers, and 

damper switches). * * *

(e) The owner or operator may 

petition the Administrator to approve 

any alternative to either the monitoring 

requirements specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section or the monthly 

operational status inspections specified 

in paragraph (d) of this section if the 

alternative will provide a continuous 

record of operation of each emission 

capture system.

* * * * *

10. Section 60.276a is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (h) and (i) to 

read as follows:

§ 60.276a Recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.

* * * * *

(h) The owner or operator shall 

maintain the following records for each 

bag leak detection system required 

under § 60.273a(e): 

(1) Records of the bag leak detection 

system output; 

(2) Records of bag leak detection 

system adjustments, including the date 

and time of the adjustment, the initial 

bag leak detector settings, and the final 

bag leak detector settings; 

(3) An identification of the date and 

time of all bag leak detection system 

alarms, the time that procedures to 

determine the cause of the alarm were 

initiated, if procedures were initiated 

within 30 minutes of the alarm, the 

cause of the alarm, an explanation of the 

actions taken, the date and time the 

cause of the alarm was alleviated, and 

if the alarm was alleviated within 3 

hours of the alarm; and 

(4) The calculation of the percent of 

time the alarm on the bag leak detection 

system sounded during each 6-month 

reporting period. 

(i) In addition to the information 

required by § 60.7(c), the percent of time 

the alarm on the bag leak detection 

system sounded during each 6-month 

reporting period shall be reported to the 

Administrator semi-annually.

[FR Doc. 02–26303 Filed 10–15–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P