19294 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–1018; FRL–8896–7] 

RIN 2060–AO41 

New Source Performance Standards 

Review for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants; and Amendment to 

Subpart UUU Applicability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments 

to the Standards of Performance for 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plant(s) 

(NMPP). These final amendments 

include revisions to the emission limits 

for NMPP affected facilities which 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. These final amendments for 

NMPP also include: Additional testing 

and monitoring requirements for 

affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008; exemption of affected facilities 

that process wet material from this final 

rule; changes to simplify the notification 

requirements for all affected facilities; 

and changes to definitions and various 

clarifications. We are not taking any 

final action in this document regarding 

the amendment to the Standards of 

Performance for Calciners and Dryers in 

Mineral Industries discussed in the 

proposed rule. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action which is Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–1018. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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 EPA Docket Center, Standards of 

Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants Docket, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room 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 Docket Center is (202) 

566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bill Neuffer; Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards; Sector Policies 

and Programs Division, Metals and 

Minerals Group (D243–02); 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–5435; fax 

number: (919) 541–3207; e-mail address: 

neuffer.bill@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

supplementary information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

II. Background Information on Subpart OOO 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments to 

Subpart OOO and Changes Since 

Proposal 

A. What are the final emission limits for 

NMPP (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO)? 

B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO 

applicability and definitions? 

C. What are the final testing requirements 

for subpart OOO? 

D. What are the final monitoring 

requirements for subpart OOO? 

E. What are the final notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for subpart OOO? 

IV. Summary of Significant Comments and 

Responses on Subpart OOO 

A. Need for New Source Performance 

Standards 

B. Emission Limits 

C. Applicability and Definitions 

D. Testing Requirements 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

F. Notification, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

G. Construction, Modification, and 

Reconstruction 

H. Cost Impacts 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, 

and Economic Impacts of the Final 

Amendments to Subpart OOO 

A. What are the impacts for NMPP? 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

VI. No Final Action Taken With Respect To 

Subpart UUU Applicability 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and 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 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by the final amendments to 

New Source Performance Standards 

(NSPS) for NMPP (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOO) include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ...................................... 212311 Dimension Stone Mining and Quarrying. 

212312 Crushed and Broken Limestone Mining and Quarrying. 

212313 Crushed and Broken Granite Mining and Quarrying. 

212319 Other Crushed and Broken Stone Mining and Quarrying. 

212321 Construction Sand and Gravel Mining. 

212322 Industrial Sand Mining. 

212324 Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining. 

212325 Clay and Ceramic and Refractory Minerals Mining. 

212391 Potash, Soda, and Borate Mineral Mining. 

212393 Other Chemical and Fertilizer Mineral Mining. 

212399 All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining. 

221112 Fossil-Fuel Electric Power Generation. 

324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing. 

327121 Brick and Structural Clay Tile Manufacturing. 

327122 Ceramic Wall and Floor Tile Manufacturing. 

327123 Other Structural Clay Product Manufacturing. 

327124 Clay Refractory Manufacturing. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19295 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

327310 Cement Manufacturing. 

327410 Lime Manufacturing (Dolomite, Dead-burned, Manufacturing). 

327420 Gypsum Product Manufacturing. 

327992 Ground or Treated Mineral and Earth Manufacturing. 

Federal government ................... .................... Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ..... .................... Not affected. 

1 North American Industrial Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this final action. To 

determine whether your facility will be 

regulated by this final action, you 

should examine the applicability 

criteria in 40 CFR 60.670 (subpart 

OOO). If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this final 

action to a particular entity, contact the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action is available on the Worldwide 

Web (WWW) through the Technology 

Transfer Network (TTN). Following 

signature, a copy of this final action 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. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this 

final rule is available only by filing a 

petition for review in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit by June 29, 2009. 

Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 

requirements established by this final 

rule may not be challenged separately in 

any civil or criminal proceedings 

brought by EPA to enforce these 

requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with 

a copy to both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section, and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

II. Background Information on Subpart 

OOO 

NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) 

and are issued for categories of sources 

which cause, or contribute significantly 

to, air pollution which 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 that the best 

demonstrated emission control 

technologies are installed as the 

industrial infrastructure is modernized. 

Since 1970, the NSPS have been 

successful in achieving long-term 

emissions reductions in numerous 

industries by assuring cost-effective 

controls are installed on new, 

reconstructed, or modified sources. 

Section 111 of the CAA requires that 

NSPS reflect the application of the best 

system of emission reductions which 

(taking into consideration the cost of 

achieving such emission reductions, any 

non-air quality health and 

environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as best 

demonstrated technology (BDT). 

Standards of performance for NMPP (40 

CFR, subpart OOO) were promulgated 

in the Federal Register on August 1, 

1985 (50 FR 31328). 

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

requires EPA to periodically review and 

revise the standards of performance, as 

necessary, to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. The 

first action taken with respect to the 

NMPP NSPS was completed on June 9, 

1997 (62 FR 31351). 

We proposed the current review of the 

NMPP NSPS on April 22, 2008 (73 FR 

21559). We received a total of 26 

comments from NMPP, industry trade 

associations, and State environmental 

agencies during the comment period. 

This final rule reflects our consideration 

of all the comments we received. 

Detailed responses to the comments not 

included in this preamble are contained 

in the Summary of Public Comments 

and Responses document which is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

III. Summary of the Final Amendments 

to Subpart OOO and Changes Since 

Proposal 

The NMPP NSPS applies to affected 

facilities for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction 

commenced on or after August 31, 1983, 

at plants that process any of the 

following 18 nonmetallic minerals: 

Crushed and broken stone, sand and 

gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum (natural 

or synthetic), sodium compounds, 

pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, 

boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar, 

diatomite, perlite, vermiculite, mica, 

and kyanite. The affected facilities are 

each crusher, grinding mill, screening 

operation, bucket elevator, belt 

conveyor, bagging operation, storage 

bin, and enclosed truck or railcar 

loading station. 

The final amendments to the NMPP 

NSPS (subpart OOO of 40 CFR part 60) 

are summarized in Table 1 of this 

preamble. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19296 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE FINAL AMENDMENTS TO SUBPART OOO 

Citation Change 

§ 60.670(a)(2) .................................. Exempt wet material processing operations; clarify rule does not apply to plants with no crushers or grinding mills. 

§ 60.670(d)(1) .................................. Amend to clarify that like-for-like replacements have no emissions increase. 

§ 60.670(f) ....................................... Revise to conform with amended Table 1 to subpart OOO. 

§ 60.671 ........................................... Add definitions of: Crush or crushing, saturated material, seasonal shut down, and wet material processing 

operations. 

Amend definition of screening operation to exempt static grizzlies. 

Amend definition of nonmetallic mineral to include gypsum (natural or synthetic). 

Amend definition of storage bin to correct typographical error by changing ‘‘or’’ to ‘‘of’’. 

Amend definitions of ‘‘capture system’’ and ‘‘control device’’ to replace the words ‘‘process operations’’ with 

‘‘affected facilities’’. 

§ 60.672(a) and (b) ......................... Revise to reference Tables 2 and 3 to subpart OOO and to better match General Provisions language regarding compliance dates. Tables 2 and 3 to subpart OOO contain revised emission limits and testing/ 

monitoring requirements. 

§ 60.672(c) ...................................... Reserve because superseded by Table 3 to subpart OOO. 

§ 60.672(e) ...................................... Revise cross-references. Replace Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–7) no visible emissions limit for 

building openings with 7 percent fugitive opacity limit. 

§ 60.672(f) and (g) .......................... Consolidate paragraphs to refer to Table 2 to subpart OOO. 

§§ 60.672(h) and 60.675(h) ............ Remove 60.672(h) and reserve 60.675(h) because wet material processing exempted. 

§ 60.674 ........................................... Renumber (a) and (b) as (a)(1) and (2). 

Add periodic inspections for affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction 

on or after April 22, 2008, that use wet suppression or rely on water carryover from upstream wet suppression water sprays. Add monitoring requirements for baghouses on affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008 (Method 22 visible emission inspections or use of bag leak detection systems). 

Add paragraph (e) to cite as an alternative the baghouse monitoring requirements in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) for processed stone handling operations subject to 

the NESHAP. 

§ 60.675 and various other sections 

referencing test methods.

Add text to clarify that the required EPA test methods are located in Appendices A–1 through A–7 of 40 

CFR part 60 (formerly Appendix A of 60 CFR part 60). 

§ 60.675(b)(1) .................................. Cross reference exceptions to Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–3) or Method 17 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–6). 

§ 60.675(c) ...................................... Correct cross reference to amended paragraph in (c)(1). 

Expand (c)(2) into subparagraphs (i) and (ii) to reduce the duration of Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) stack opacity observations for storage bins or enclosed truck or railcar loading stations operating for less than 1 hour at a time. 

Revise (c)(3) and delete (c)(4) to make the fugitive Method 9 testing duration 30 minutes and specify averaging time for all affected facilities. 

§ 60.675(d) ...................................... Specify performance testing requirements for the building fugitive emission limit. Allow prior Method 22 

tests showing compliance with the former no visible emissions (VE) limit. 

§ 60.675(e) ...................................... Add paragraph (e)(2) to allow Method 9 readings to be conducted on three emission points at one time if 

specified criteria are met. 

Add paragraph (e)(3) to allow Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–3) as an option for determining PM 

concentration from affected facilities that operate for less than 1 hour at a time. 

Add paragraph (e)(4) to address flow measurement from building vents with low exhaust gas velocity. 

§ 60.675(f) ....................................... Correct cross references. 

§ 60.675(g) ...................................... Revise to reduce 30-day advance notification time for Method 9 fugitive performance test to 7 days. Clarify 

that a wet material processing operation that begins to process unsaturated material becomes subject to 

the opacity limit at the time processing of unsaturated material begins. 

§ 60.675(i) ....................................... Add section to state that initial performance test dates that fall during seasonal shut downs may be postponed no later than 60 days after resuming operation (with permitting authority approval). 

§ 60.676(b) ...................................... Add requirement to previously reserved paragraph (b) for recording periodic inspections of water sprays 

and baghouse monitoring for affected facilities that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008. 

Add recordkeeping requirements for each affected facility demonstrating compliance with the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP baghouse monitoring requirements. 

§ 60.676(d) ...................................... Remove reference to upper limits on scrubber pressure and liquid flow rate. 

§ 60.676(f) and (g) .......................... Edit to conform to wet material processing exemption and/or relevant opacity limits. 

§ 60.676(h) ...................................... Delete reference to now reserved 60.7(a)(2). Waive requirement to submit 60.7(a)(1) notification of the 

date construction or reconstruction commenced. 

§ 60.676(k) ...................................... Add section to state that notifications and reports need only be sent to the delegated authority (or the EPA 

Region when there is no delegated authority). 

Table 1 to subpart OOO ................. Move to end of subpart OOO, shorten to include only exceptions to the General Provisions, and update 

comments. 

Table 2 to subpart OOO ................. Add table to specify the stack PM limits and testing/monitoring requirements for affected facilities based on 

applicability dates. 

Table 3 to subpart OOO ................. Add table to specify the fugitive opacity limits and testing/monitoring requirements for affected facilities 

based on applicability dates. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19297 

1 ‘‘Capture system’’ is defined in subpart OOO as 

‘‘the equipment (including enclosures, hoods, 

ducts, fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and 

transport particulate matter generated by one or 

more affected facilities to a control device.’’ 

2Fugitive emission’’ is defined in subpart OOO as 

‘‘particulate matter that is not collected by a capture 

system and is released to the atmosphere at the 

point of generation.’’ 

A. What are the final emission limits for 

NMPP (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO)? 

For affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, the final emission limits are being 

promulgated as proposed. This final 

rule requires a particulate matter (PM) 

emission limit of 0.032 grams per dry 

standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.014 

grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/ 

dscf)), for affected facilities with capture 

systems 1 (i.e., affected facilities with 

stack emissions) and eliminates the 

stack opacity limit for dry control 

devices. Baghouses that control 

emissions from only an individual, 

enclosed storage bin are exempt from 

the PM limit but must meet a final stack 

opacity limit of 7 percent. A fugitive 

emission limit of 7 percent opacity is 

required for all types of affected 

facilities with fugitive emissions, except 

for crushers without capture systems 

which have a fugitive emission limit of 

12 percent opacity. Fugitive emissions 2

can be present when emissions are not 

captured (e.g., at affected facilities 

without capture systems) or when the 

capture system is not completely 

effective in capturing and transporting 

emissions to a control device (such as a 

baghouse or wet scrubber). 

The emission limits for affected 

facilities that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction before 

April 22, 2008, remain unchanged. As 

in the original NSPS, affected facilities 

with capture systems must meet a stack 

PM emissions limit of 0.05 g/dscm 

(0.022 gr/dscf) and affected facilities 

with fugitive emissions must meet 

opacity limits of 15 percent (for crushers 

without capture systems) and 10 percent 

for all other types of affected facilities 

with fugitive emissions. 

An alternative set of emission limits 

is available for affected facilities 

enclosed in buildings. These building 

emission limits are being promulgated 

as proposed. Plants must either comply 

with the emission limits stated above for 

each affected facility located in the 

building, or alternatively, comply with 

the emission limits for the building 

enclosing the affected facility. The 

building emission limits are as follows: 

• Fugitive emissions from the 

building openings (except for vents) 

must not exceed 7 percent opacity; and 

• Vents (as defined in § 60.671) in the 

building must meet the applicable stack 

emission limits. A building vent PM 

limit of 0.014 gr/dscf is required if the 

vent discharges emissions from an 

affected facility that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. A building vent PM limit of 0.022 

gr/dscf and an opacity limit of 7 percent 

is required if the vent discharges 

emissions from an affected facility that 

commenced construction, modification, 

or reconstruction before April 22, 2008. 

B. How is EPA amending subpart OOO 

applicability and definitions? 

Synthetic gypsum. Consistent with the 

proposal preamble clarification that 

synthetic gypsum is covered by subpart 

OOO, we are amending the definition of 

‘‘nonmetallic mineral’’ to include 

‘‘gypsum (natural or synthetic)’’ in place 

of ‘‘gypsum.’’ 

Wet material processing. As proposed, 

we are adding two definitions and 

making other amendments to exempt 

from subpart OOO wet material 

processing operations that have no 

potential for PM emissions. Wet 

material processing operations include: 

(a) Wet screening operations and 

subsequent screening operations, bucket 

elevators and belt conveyors in the 

production line that process saturated 

materials up to the first crusher, 

grinding mill or storage bin in the 

production line; or (b) screening 

operations, bucket elevators and belt 

conveyors in the production line 

downstream of wet mining operations 

that process saturated materials up to 

the first crusher, grinding mill or storage 

bin in the production line. We also are 

adding a definition of ‘‘saturated 

material’’ to describe the type of 

material intended to be exempted from 

this final rule. Through the definitions 

of ‘‘wet material processing operation’’ 

and ‘‘saturated material’’ (as well as 

other existing definitions of ‘‘wet 

mining operation’’ and ‘‘wet screening 

operation’’), we are exempting from 

coverage under subpart OOO mineral 

material that is wet enough on its 

surface to remove the possibility of PM 

emissions being generated from 

processing of the material through 

screening operations, bucket elevators 

and belt conveyors. Material that is 

wetted solely by wet suppression 

systems designed to add surface 

moisture for dust control is not 

considered to be ‘‘saturated material’’ 

for purposes of this exemption. 

Examples of saturated material include 

slurries of water and mineral material, 

material that is wet as it enters the 

processing plant from the mine, material 

that is wet from washing, material with 

a high percentage moisture (considering 

mineral type), etc. 

Grizzlies. As proposed, we are 

amending the definition of ‘‘screening 

operation’’ to clarify that all grizzlies 

associated with truck dumping and 

static (non-agitating) grizzlies are not 

subpart OOO affected facilities. 

Crushers. We are adding the proposed 

definition of ‘‘crush or crushing’’ which 

means to reduce the size of nonmetallic 

mineral material by means of physical 

impaction of the crusher or grinding 

mill upon the material. The new 

definition clarifies that crushers and 

grinding mills do not include 

equipment that simply breaks up 

clumps of material (e.g., certain 

deagglomerators, slicers or shredders 

processing material that has become 

stuck together naturally or during 

handling/processing) but does not 

further reduce the size of the material. 

C. What are the final testing 

requirements for subpart OOO? 

Subpart OOO requires NMPP to 

conduct an initial performance test to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

relevant stack or fugitive emission 

limits. 

Stack testing. Stack PM emissions are 

to be measured with EPA Method 5 (40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–3) or Method 

17 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–6). As 

proposed, we are adding EPA Method 5I 

(40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–3)— 

‘‘Determination of Low Level Particulate 

Matter Emissions from Stationary 

Sources’’ in § 60.675(e)(3) as an optional 

test method that can be used instead of 

Methods 5 or 17. Method 5I is useful for 

low PM concentration applications, 

where the total PM catch is 50 

milligrams or less. With Method 5I, the 

sample rate and total gas volume is 

adjusted based on the estimated grain 

loading of the emission point and the 

total sampling time is a function of the 

estimated mass of PM to be collected for 

the run. Thus, Method 5I can be used in 

situations where the minimum sampling 

volume of 60 dscf (required for Methods 

5 and 17) cannot be obtained (e.g., for 

affected facilities that operate for less 

than 1 hour at a time such as, but not 

limited to, storage bins and loading 

stations). 

Stack opacity must be measured with 

EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–4) for affected facilities 

with a stack opacity limit. As proposed, 

we are reducing the Method 9 stack 

opacity test duration from 3 hours to the 

duration that the affected facility 

operates (but not less than 30 minutes) 

for baghouses that control storage bins 

or enclosed truck or railcar loading 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

stations that operate for less than 1 hour 

at a time. 

Fugitive testing. The opacity from 

affected facilities with fugitive 

emissions must be measured with EPA 

Method 9 (though the duration of 

Method 9 readings is reduced in some 

cases as discussed below). As proposed, 

this final rule requires a 30-minute 

fugitive Method 9 test duration (five 6- 

minute averages) for all affected 

facilities with fugitive emissions. 

Compliance with the applicable fugitive 

emissions limit must be based on the 

average of the five 6-minute averages 

recorded during the 30 minutes. A 

single visible emission observer is 

allowed to conduct observations for up 

to three subpart OOO emission points at 

a time (including stack and vent 

emission points) provided that the three 

criteria in § 60.675(e)(2) are met. The 

third criterion was changed from 

proposal to state that none of the three 

readings taken during each 15 second 

period can equal or exceed the 

applicable standard. If this occurs, the 

observer must stop taking readings for 

all three points and focus on the one 

that equaled or exceeded the applicable 

standard. 

The proposed rule would have 

required repeat Method 9 performance 

testing (30-minute test) once every 5 

years for affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, with fugitive emissions that are 

controlled by water carryover or other 

means (e.g., enclosures). This 5-year 

repeat testing requirement is being 

promulgated as proposed, except that 

affected facility fugitive emissions 

controlled by water carryover from 

upstream water sprays that are 

inspected according to the requirements 

in § 60.674(b) and § 60.676(b) of subpart 

OOO are exempt from the 5-year repeat 

testing requirement. 

Buildings. Subpart OOO contains an 

optional compliance method that allows 

emissions measurement from the 

building instead of each affected facility 

within a building. As proposed, we are 

replacing the former no VE limit and 

procedure for measuring fugitive 

emissions from building openings (a 75 

minute Method 22 test) with a 7 percent 

opacity limit measured using a 30- 

minute EPA Method 9 test. Compliance 

with the 7 percent opacity limit will be 

demonstrated through initial testing. 

Buildings that previously demonstrated 

compliance with the former Method 22 

no VE limit through performance testing 

are not required to be retested to show 

compliance with today’s Method 9 

opacity limit unless an affected facility 

for which construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced on or after 

April 22, 2008, is located inside the 

building. 

Seasonal shut downs. As proposed, 

we are adding § 60.675(i) to subpart 

OOO to allow plants, with approval 

from the appropriate permitting 

authority, to postpone initial 

performance testing until 60 calendar 

days after resuming operation following 

a seasonal shut down of an affected 

facility. A ‘‘seasonal shut down’’ is 

defined as the ‘‘shut down of an affected 

facility for a period of at least 45 

consecutive days due to weather or 

seasonal market conditions’’. 

D. What are the final monitoring 

requirements for subpart OOO? 

Monitoring for fugitive emissions 

limits. Fugitive emissions from subpart 

OOO affected facilities are often 

controlled by wet suppression. In wet 

suppression systems, water (with or 

without surfactant) is sprayed on 

nonmetallic minerals at various 

locations in the process line but not 

necessarily at every affected facility. 

Carryover of water sprayed at affected 

facilities upstream in the process line is 

often sufficient to control fugitive 

emissions from affected facilities 

downstream in the process. Partial 

enclosures or other means may also be 

used to reduce fugitive emissions 

instead of or in addition to water sprays 

or water carryover. Subpart OOO does 

not specify any particular technique for 

reducing fugitive emissions. Rather, 

subpart OOO specifies fugitive emission 

limits that must be met. Continuous 

compliance requirements for wet 

suppression systems are addressed in 

subpart OOO due to the prevalence of 

wet suppression as a control technique 

for NMPP. 

As proposed, monthly periodic 

inspections of wet suppression water 

sprays are required for affected facilities 

with wet suppression that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. The periodic inspections (which 

are specified in § 60.674(b) and 

§ 60.676(b)) apply for affected facilities 

with fugitive emissions that are 

controlled by either: (a) Direct water 

sprays located at the affected facility, or 

(b) water carryover from upstream water 

sprays (for affected facilities exempted 

from the 5-year repeat performance test 

under § 60.674(b)(1)). The purpose of 

the inspections is to ensure that water 

is flowing to the discharge water spray 

nozzles in the wet suppression system. 

If, during an inspection, water is not 

flowing properly, corrective action must 

be initiated within 24 hours and 

completed as expediently as practical. 

The requirement to complete corrective 

action as expediently as practical was 

added in response to public comment. 

We added § 60.674(b)(1) to this final 

rule to specify the testing exemption 

and to require NMPP to designate (at the 

time of the initial performance test) 

which upstream water spray(s) will be 

periodically inspected for water flow to 

indicate continuous compliance with 

the fugitive emission limits for each 

affected facility being exempted from 

the 5-year repeat performance testing. 

Baghouse monitoring. As proposed, 

the 7 percent stack opacity limit is being 

replaced with ongoing monitoring for 

baghouses on affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. This final rule contains three 

options for monitoring of baghouses on 

affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. The first two options are being 

promulgated as proposed. The third 

option is being added to the final 

standards (as a result of public 

comments) for affected facilities subject 

to the Lime Manufacturing National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP). 

The first option is quarterly VE 

inspections using EPA Method 22 for 30 

minutes. The VE inspections would be 

successful if no visible emissions are 

observed. If any VE are observed, 

corrective action must be initiated 

within 24 hours to restore the baghouse 

to normal operation. If the baghouse 

normally displays some VE, a different 

baghouse-specific success level for the 

VE inspections (other than no VE) can 

be established by conducting a PM test 

simultaneously with a Method 22 test to 

determine what constitutes normal VE 

from the baghouse when it is in 

compliance with the subpart OOO PM 

concentration limit. The revised VE 

inspection success level must be 

incorporated into the operating permit. 

The second option is the use of a bag 

leak detection system. The bag leak 

detection system must be installed and 

operated according to § 60.674(d). 

For affected facilities subject to the 

Lime Manufacturing NESHAP, we are 

offering a third option. This option is 

complying with the continuous 

compliance requirements for baghouses 

on processed stone handling operations 

in the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA). 

Wet scrubber monitoring. As 

proposed, we are revising § 60.676(d) to 

delete reference to scrubber pressure 

gain and the upper limit for scrubber 

liquid flow. Increases in these 

parameters would only increase 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19299 

scrubber PM removal efficiency and 

thus reduce PM emissions. We are not 

making any further changes to the wet 

scrubber monitoring requirements at 

this time because the Agency proposed 

Performance Specification 17 (PS–17) 

and Procedure 4 for continuous 

parameter monitoring systems (which 

include pressure and liquid flow 

measurements) on October 9, 2008 (73 

FR 59956). Following public comment 

and promulgation of PS–17 and 

Procedure 4, the procedures and 

requirements in PS–17 and Procedure 4 

are intended to supersede the wet 

scrubber monitoring language in subpart 

OOO for affected facilities with wet 

scrubbers installed on or after October 9, 

2008. 

E. What are the final notification, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements for subpart OOO? 

Notifications and reports. We are 

simplifying the notification 

requirements in subpart OOO in several 

ways as proposed. We are deleting 

reference to § 60.7(a)(2) in § 60.676(h) to 

be consistent with changes made to 

subpart A. We are also adding new rule 

language for § 60.676(h) to waive the 

§ 60.7(a)(1) (subpart A) requirement to 

submit a notification of commencement 

of construction/reconstruction for 

NMPP affected facilities. We are adding 

a new § 60.676(k) to subpart OOO 

stating that notifications generated 

under subpart OOO are only to be sent 

to either the State (if the State is 

delegated authority to administer NSPS) 

or to the EPA Region (if the State has 

not been delegated authority), but not to 

both the State and EPA Region. We are 

changing § 60.675(g) to allow a 7-day 

advance notification for performance 

tests involving only Method 9. 

What are the final recordkeeping 

requirements for subpart OOO? As 

proposed, we are requiring NMPP to 

keep records of periodic inspections 

performed on water sprays (monthly 

checks that water is flowing) or 

baghouses (quarterly Method 22 

readings) controlling affected facilities 

that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008. Each periodic 

inspection must be recorded in a 

logbook which may be maintained in 

written or electronic format. The 

logbook entries include inspection dates 

and any corrective actions taken. The 

logbook must be kept onsite and either 

a hard copy or electronic copy 

(whichever is requested) made available 

to EPA or delegated authority upon 

request. 

Plants opting to use bag leak detection 

systems in lieu of periodic VE 

inspections for baghouses will be 

required to keep the records specified in 

§ 60.676(b)(2). Plants opting to follow 

the continuous compliance 

requirements of Subpart AAAAA of Part 

63 must keep the records specified in 

§ 63.7132(a)(3) and (b) of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAAA. According to 

§ 60.7(f), records are required to be 

retained for a period of 2 years. 

IV. Summary of Significant Comments 

and Responses on Subpart OOO 

We received a total of 26 comments 

from NMPP, industry trade associations, 

and State environmental agencies 

during the public comment period for 

the proposed amendments to subpart 

OOO. Several changes are being made to 

these final amendments in response to 

these public comments. The major 

comments leading to rule changes and 

our responses are summarized in the 

following sections. Along with 

comments offering suggested changes, 

we received a number of comments 

offering support for the amendments to 

subpart OOO. We received only 

supportive comments for many of the 

proposed amendments including: 

omitting the stack opacity limit for new 

affected facilities (except for baghouses 

controlling individual enclosed storage 

bins), exempting static grizzlies, 

eliminating upper limits on wet 

scrubber liquid flow and pressure drop, 

allowing the use of Method 5I as a PM 

test method, reducing the Method 9 

stack testing time for storage bins and 

loadouts that operate less than one hour 

at a time, and specifying that 

compliance is based on the average of 

the five 6-minute averages recorded 

during the 30 minute Method 9 tests for 

affected facilities with fugitive 

emissions. These supporting comments 

are not included in this preamble. A 

complete summary of all the comments 

received during the comment period 

and responses thereto can be found in 

the docket for the final amendments and 

new standards (Docket ID EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–1018). The docket also 

contains further details on the analyses 

summarized in the responses below. 

A. Need for New Source Performance 

Standards 

Comment: In addition to other 

comments requesting exemption of the 

salt industry from subpart OOO (which 

are addressed in the Summary of Public 

Comments and Responses document), 

one commenter requested that EPA 

exempt salt operations (rock salt and 

sodium chloride) from subpart OOO 

because most salt operations do not 

operate crushers or grinders above 

ground. The commenter stated that 

subpart OOO was intended to cover 

open pit mining and noted that the 

applicability prerequisite of the rule is 

that a facility must have a crusher or 

grinder. The commenter stated that 

underground mines are exempt from the 

rule (assuming there are no secondary or 

tertiary crushers above ground) yet also 

have crushers/grinders located 

underground and can have screening 

and process equipment above ground 

that produce emissions. The commenter 

explained that salt is produced at three 

types of facilities (solution mines, solar 

production, and traditional 

underground mines). Some of the 

commenter’s plants are subject to 

subpart OOO because they operate small 

above ground crushers (which are 

located indoors) for one production line 

at solution and solar operations. The 

commenter stated that many salt 

operations are enclosed in buildings and 

operate with dust collectors for product 

quality reasons and to reduce dust 

inside the building. 

Response: The 1997 NSPS action (62 

FR 31351, June 9, 1997) added 

§ 60.670(a)(2) to subpart OOO to clarify 

that the provisions of subpart OOO do 

not apply to all facilities located in 

underground mines and plants without 

crushers or grinding mills. It was noted 

in the proposal and promulgation 

notices for the 1997 NSPS action that 

emissions from crushers or other 

facilities in underground mines are 

vented in the general mine exhaust and 

cannot be distinguished from emissions 

from drilling and blasting operations 

which are mining operations not 

covered by the standards. It was the 

original intent of the NSPS that standalone screening operations at plants 

without crushers or grinding mills are 

not subject to the NSPS (i.e., because the 

original definition of ‘‘nonmetallic 

mineral processing plant’’ refers to 

equipment used to crush or grind 

nonmetallic minerals). Consistent with 

the intent of the original NSPS and the 

1997 clarifications, we are amending 

§ 60.670(a)(2) to clarify that plants 

without crushers or grinding mills 

above ground are not subject to subpart 

OOO. Plants with any above ground 

crushers or grinding mills (including 

those located in buildings) for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced after August 

31, 1983, remain subject to the 

provisions of subpart OOO. Subpart 

OOO specifically addresses emissions 

from affected facilities located in 

buildings and provides options for 

measurement of these emissions. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19300 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Emission Limits 

Comment: Commenters questioned 

the basis for revising the emission limits 

because the technology representing 

BDT has not changed. The commenters 

argued that EPA is taking away the 

margin of compliance available for 

facilities using the identified NSPS 

technologies. 

Several commenters objected to the 

proposed stack PM limit of 0.014 gr/dscf 

and questioned the basis for the 

revision. Some commenters agreed with 

the conclusion that setting a PM limit 

below 0.014 gr/dscf could result in a 

level of control that may be difficult to 

continually achieve. 

Many commenters questioned the 

technical reasons for reducing the 

fugitive emission limits from 15 to 12 

percent opacity for crushers and from 10 

to 7 percent opacity for other affected 

facilities. Some commenters questioned 

if reducing the fugitive emission limits 

is necessary, given EPA’s conclusion 

that the potential benefits cannot be 

quantified and are likely to be similar to 

the current standard. Commenters were 

particularly concerned with the 

proposed 7 percent fugitive opacity 

limit and stated that an opacity standard 

within the 7.5 percent positive error of 

Method 9 is basically a ‘‘no VE’’ 

standard. Two commenters referred to 

Method 9 error as high as 14 percent in 

the document ‘‘Air Pollution Control 

Techniques for Non-Metallic Minerals 

Industry’’ (EPA–450/3–82–014, August 

1982). Other commenters noted that it 

would make more sense for the limits to 

be in increments of 5 percent since this 

is how opacity is read. The commenters 

supported basing compliance on the 

average of the five 6-minute averages 

collected during the 30-minute opacity 

test. Two commenters supported the 

proposed fugitive emission limits. 

Response: Section 111 of the CAA 

requires that NSPS reflect the 

application of the best system of 

emission reductions which (taking into 

consideration the cost of achieving such 

emission reductions, any non-air quality 

health and environmental impact and 

energy requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

commonly referred to as BDT. Section 

111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to 

periodically review and revise the 

standards of performance, as necessary, 

to reflect improvements in methods for 

reducing emissions. The subpart OOO 

emission limits were established with 

the 1983 proposal and 1985 

promulgation of subpart OOO, based on 

review of the performance of technology 

and emissions data collected in the late 

1970s. The emission limits have not 

been reevaluated based on actual 

emissions testing in over 20 years 

because the first action taken with 

respect to the NMPP NSPS, completed 

on June 9, 1997 (62 FR 31351), 

considered provisions other than the 

emission limits. 

For purposes of this (2008–2009) 

NSPS review, we reviewed more recent 

actual emissions data from hundreds of 

emissions tests conducted on a variety 

of subpart OOO affected facilities in 

many NMPP industries (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2007–1018–0085). These data 

revealed that the vast majority of 

affected facilities perform substantially 

better than the current subpart OOO 

emission limits. Therefore, we 

determined that it was appropriate in 

this NSPS review to reduce the subpart 

OOO emission limits for affected 

facilities commencing construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008. Further, because 

the majority of existing affected 

facilities for which we have data meet 

the revised standards (as discussed 

below), EPA concludes that all new 

affected facilities should also be able to 

achieve them. 

For affected facilities commencing 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, we are retaining (as proposed) the 

stack emission limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and 

we are replacing the associated 7 

percent stack opacity limit with a 

continuous monitoring requirement. For 

affected facilities commencing 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, we are promulgating the proposed 

fugitive emission limits of 12 percent 

opacity for crushers without capture 

systems and 7 percent opacity for all 

other types of affected facilities with 

fugitive emissions (including fugitive 

emissions from grinding mills, 

screening operations, bucket elevators, 

belt conveyors, bagging operations, 

storage bins, enclosed truck or railcar 

loading stations, and any other affected 

facility). 

The stack emissions data we reviewed 

to set the revised limits included over 

300 PM stack tests from 1990 and later. 

Ninety-one percent of the PM stack test 

results achieved 0.014 gr/dscf or lower. 

The control devices used for the affected 

facilities tested included primarily 

baghouses and wet scrubbers. In 

addition, we reviewed more than 700 

fugitive emissions tests. For crushers 

without capture systems, 98 percent of 

the fugitive emissions test averages were 

at or below 12 percent opacity and 99 

percent of the fugitive emissions test 

averages for other types of affected 

facilities were at or below 7 percent 

opacity. The fugitive emission limits are 

most commonly met through use of wet 

suppression (as needed), water 

carryover, or with a partial enclosure. 

Affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, can employ the same control 

devices or fugitive emission reduction 

measures for which test data were 

reviewed to meet the revised emission 

limits, except that the small fraction of 

marginally performing controls would 

no longer be acceptable for new, 

modified, or reconstructed affected 

facilities. The small fraction of existing 

marginally performing controls can be 

represented by the fraction of test data 

above the revised emission limits (i.e., 

less than 10 percent of data, including 

data from controls that failed to meet 

the original NSPS limits but were later 

retested and met the limits). Such 

controls will no longer be acceptable for 

new, modified, or reconstructed affected 

facilities. This is consistent with the 

goal of NSPS review to reflect 

improvements in methods for reducing 

emissions. In short, because the vast 

majority of existing affected facilities for 

which we have data are achieving these 

revised standards, EPA has concluded 

that all new affected facilities should be 

able to achieve these revised standards 

as well. We have no reason to believe 

that new affected facilities could not 

meet the revised standards. 

We disagree with assertions that the 

revised limits erase any margin for error 

or fail to account for variability. To the 

contrary, significant percentages of the 

test data achieved substantially lower 

limits than are being promulgated for 

subpart OOO. Thus, a workable 

compliance margin and provision for 

variability remains. 

The emission reduction associated 

with lowering the fugitive emission 

limits is not quantifiable because no 

reduction in mass emission rate can be 

determined from opacity measurements. 

However, that does not mean that there 

is no environmental benefit. The 

environmental benefit is that higher 

emissions from marginally performing 

controls (as described above) will no 

longer be acceptable for fugitive 

emissions from affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. 

Although opacity is read in 5 percent 

increments, the test average resulting 

from averaging the opacity observations 

is not limited to increments of 5 percent 

opacity. In addition to reducing the 

fugitive opacity limits, we are also 

specifying in § 60.675(c)(3) that the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19301 

duration of the Method 9 observations 

must be 30 minutes (five 6-minute 

averages) and that compliance with the 

fugitive emission limits must be based 

on the average of the five 6-minute 

averages (which is equivalent to the test 

average). Commenters unanimously 

supported this averaging procedure. 

Regarding the 7.5 percent error 

mentioned in Method 9 and the 14 

percent error reflected in EPA–450/3– 

82–014, we note that these error values 

are based on 6-minute average opacity 

results and represent exceptions rather 

than norms. Therefore, we disagree that 

setting an opacity standard below 7.5 

percent is equivalent to establishing a 

‘‘no visible emission’’ standard. We 

further note that the averaging 

procedure specified in § 60.675(c)(3) 

requires averaging of more than 6 

minutes of observations which would 

dampen the effect of any errors. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification on the rule language in 

§ 60.672(f) regarding the limit for a 

baghouse controlling only an individual 

enclosed storage bin that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. The commenter, and another 

commenter, supported retaining the 7 

percent opacity limit for such 

baghouses. Another commenter 

suggested that additional rows be added 

to Table 2 to illustrate the various 

scenarios to replace the footnotes and 

exceptions. 

Response: As proposed, the revisions 

to subpart OOO specify that a baghouse 

controlling only an individual enclosed 

storage bin is exempt from the stack PM 

concentration limit but must meet a 7 

percent opacity limit. The 7 percent 

opacity limit is being retained for 

baghouses controlling only an 

individual enclosed storage bin that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, because such baghouses have no 

applicable PM concentration 

requirements. We have modified the 

wording in § 60.672(f) to clarify this 

intent. 

We requested comment in the 

preamble to the proposed rule on 

whether the addition of Tables 2 and 3 

to subpart OOO helped to improve the 

readability of the rule and helped to 

distinguish between the stack and 

fugitive emission limits. We considered 

adding rows to the proposed Table 2 to 

subpart OOO to address the exceptions 

noted in the table footnotes as suggested 

by one commenter. However, we found 

the resulting table to be more 

cumbersome and difficult to read than 

the proposed table with footnotes. Given 

that we only received one comment 

regarding the tables, we concluded that 

the proposed tables are acceptable to 

most stakeholders and have chosen not 

to overhaul the rows of Table 2 to 

subpart OOO to prevent confusion. 

However, we clarified the language in 

§ 60.672(f) cited in footnote ‘‘a’’ of Table 

2 to subpart OOO and corrected 

paragraph number references. 

Affected facilities using wet dust 

suppression or other fugitive emission 

reduction measures (but no control 

device) are subject to the fugitive 

emission limits. The stack emission 

limits apply for affected facilities using 

capture systems, which by definition in 

§ 60.671, transport PM to a control 

device. It has come to our attention that 

further clarification may be needed for 

circumstances when fugitive emissions 

escape from a capture system that 

directs emissions to a control device 

such as a baghouse or wet scrubber. 

Therefore, we are modifying the title of 

the proposed Table 3 to subpart OOO 

and § 60.672(b) to reflect that fugitive 

emissions escaping from a capture 

system prior to reaching the control 

device are subject to the applicable 

fugitive emission limits (and associated 

compliance demonstration 

requirements) in Table 3 to subpart 

OOO. The captured emissions routed to 

the control device would be subject to 

the applicable stack emission limits 

(and associated compliance 

demonstration requirements) in Table 2 

to subpart OOO. We are also rewording 

the proposed column headings in Table 

3 to subpart OOO so the table contains 

language from the original NSPS 

sections § 60.672(b) and (c) that 

distinguished between crushers without 

capture systems (e.g., crushers 

controlled by wet suppression only) and 

other affected facilities including 

crushers with capture systems as 

defined in § 60.671 that allow fugitive 

emissions to escape (e.g., capture 

systems not completely effective in 

transporting emissions to the control 

device). These clarifications are 

consistent with the original structure 

and intent of subpart OOO as described 

in the original 1983 proposal notice (see 

48 FR 39571–39573 and 39577, August 

31, 1983), the 1985 promulgation notice 

(see 50 FR 31335 and 31339, August 1, 

1985), and in the 1983 Background 

Information Document (EPA–450/3–83– 

001b). 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

supported the replacement of the 

Method 22 no VE standard for building 

openings with a 7 percent fugitive 

opacity limit at the inlet and outlet 

points of a building measured using a 

30-minute Method 9 test with 

compliance determined as stated in 

§ 60.675(c)(3). Some commenters argued 

that the limit should be greater than 7 

percent due to the error in Method 9 

measurements. The commenters 

suggested that the fugitive opacity limit 

be tied to that of the equipment with the 

highest allowable standard located 

within the structure since the purpose 

of the structure is typically for noise 

control or aesthetics and not emissions 

control. An additional commenter stated 

that NSPS sources inside buildings 

should have the option of either doing 

a performance test on the equipment 

using the 30-minute Method 9, or 

testing the ingress and egress of the 

building. 

Two commenters suggested that 

building vents be exempt from the stack 

PM concentration limit and associated 

performance testing (like baghouses 

controlling emissions from individual 

enclosed storage bins). The commenters 

stated that building vents and 

individual storage bin baghouses have 

the same 7 percent opacity limit, and 

both are likely to have very low 

velocities. The commenters noted there 

is the potential for problems with 

isokinetic conditions, and long testing 

times to get the required sample volume 

even with Method 5I. With a 7 percent 

opacity limit and low velocities, the 

commenters stated that actual mass 

emissions from a vent would be very 

low. The commenters noted that vents 

are also more likely to be in locations 

difficult to access without potential 

safety concerns. 

Response: The emission limits 

specified for buildings are part of an 

optional compliance method for affected 

facilities inside of buildings. Rather 

than measuring the emissions from each 

affected facility within a building 

(which is sometimes difficult due to 

close equipment spacing and lighting), 

NMPP have the option of measuring 

emissions from the building. For 

example, NMPP have the option of 

conducting a 30-minute Method 9 on 

fugitive emissions from each of the 

affected facilities within a building, or 

conducting a 30-minute Method 9 on 

the building openings (i.e., ingress and 

egress). 

Emissions can escape buildings in 

two ways: (1) As fugitive emissions 

through an unpowered building 

opening, or (2) as emissions discharged 

through a powered building vent. 

‘‘Vent’’ is defined in § 60.671 as, ‘‘an 

opening through which there is 

mechanically induced air flow for the 

purpose of exhausting from a building 

air carrying particulate matter emissions 

from one or more affected facilities.’’ 

Because there are two ways emissions 

can escape from buildings, two sets of 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19302 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Inadequate monitoring concerns were raised by 

EPA in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPR) published on February 16, 2005 (70 FR 

7905). 

emission limits make up the optional 

building compliance procedure: 

(1) A 7 percent opacity limit for 

fugitive emissions from building 

openings, and/or 

(2) The subpart OOO stack emission 

limits for building vents (i.e., 0.022 gr/ 

dscf and 7% opacity for affected 

facilities between August 31, 1983, and 

April 22, 2008; and 0.014 gr/dscf and 

ongoing monitoring for affected 

facilities on or after April 22, 2008). 

The 7 percent opacity limit for 

fugitive emissions from building 

openings (measured with a 30-minute 

Method 9 test) is being promulgated as 

proposed. The 7 percent opacity limit 

was proposed as a change from the 

former no VE limit (measured with EPA 

Method 22) for building openings. We 

disagree that the building fugitive 

opacity limit should be higher than 7 

percent due to Method 9 measurement 

error, because, as stated previously, the 

measurement errors referenced by 

commenters were atypical. We also 

disagree that the building fugitive limit 

should be tied to that of the affected 

facility with the highest allowable limit. 

The 7 percent opacity limit corresponds 

to the lower of the two fugitive emission 

limits for affected facilities that may be 

housed in a building. The 7 percent 

fugitive opacity limit also corresponds 

to the 7 percent stack opacity limit 

required for building vents for affected 

facilities that commenced construction, 

modification, or reconstruction between 

August 31, 1983, and April 22, 2008. 

We disagree with the commenters that 

building vents should be exempted from 

the stack PM concentration limit and 

associated initial performance testing. 

Building vents are treated differently 

from baghouses controlling individual 

enclosed storage bins for several 

reasons. First, testing of building vents 

is an optional method for demonstrating 

compliance. Facilities may either 

measure emissions from each affected 

facility within a building, or opt to 

measure emissions from the building. 

Second, the revisions to subpart OOO 

contain rule language in § 60.675(e)(4) 

specifically to address low flow rate 

conditions from building vents. No 

comments were received on the 

proposed language and § 60.675(e)(4) is 

being promulgated as proposed. Third, 

Method 5I is an optional test method 

added to subpart OOO to address low 

flows. Use of Method 5I is not limited 

to the subpart OOO affected facility 

examples stated in § 60.675(e)(3). 

Method 5I may be used for building 

vents if it is helpful. Given the number 

of options available for determining 

flow rate and testing PM, the stack PM 

limit has been retained for building 

vents. 

C. Applicability and Definitions 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported exemption of wet material 

processing operations from subpart 

OOO and the proposed definition of 

‘‘saturated material.’’ However, one 

commenter noted that it may be difficult 

to determine what is saturated. The 

commenter suggested that EPA specify 

in the definition of ‘‘saturated material’’ 

that water is visibly dripping from the 

processed material or that wet material 

be restricted to subterranean, subaqueous (excavated) materials. 

Response: We are promulgating the 

exemption for wet material processing 

operations as proposed. The intent of 

the definition of ‘‘saturated material’’ is 

to define mineral material with 

sufficient surface moisture (excluding 

material wetted by wet suppression 

systems) such that PM emissions are not 

generated from processing of the 

material through screening operations, 

bucket elevators and belt conveyors. We 

disagree that water must be visibly 

dripping from nonmetallic minerals in 

order for there to be sufficient surface 

moisture to eliminate the potential for 

PM emissions from the handling of the 

material. Therefore, we have not 

incorporated the commenters suggested 

addition to the definition (nor have we 

restricted wet material to subterranean, 

sub-aqueous excavated materials). 

D. Testing Requirements 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

stated that repeat fugitive emissions 

testing every 5 years for affected 

facilities without direct water sprays is 

unnecessary. The commenters noted 

that carryover moisture has been 

demonstrated to control fugitive 

emissions as acknowledged in AP–42 

Chapter 11.9.2 for Crushed Stone 

Processing. 

The commenters stated that the 

number of sources controlled by water 

carryover or with partial enclosure that 

would be required to conduct repeat 

tests every 5 years would be enormous, 

posing a burden for industry and 

delegated regulatory agencies with 

minimal environmental return. The 

commenters stated that there is no need 

to conduct repeat tests if the affected 

facilities that rely on water carryover 

have initial performance tests showing 

compliance with the emission standard 

and monthly inspections showing that 

the controls installed at the time of 

initial testing continue to function as 

designed. Delegated agencies have the 

authority to request a Method 9 test at 

any time to verify compliance if there is 

a concern. Some commenters noted that, 

in addition to the initial compliance 

test, companies do various inspections 

to verify compliance and are also 

routinely inspected by State and local 

regulatory agencies. One commenter 

noted that sources are observed for a 

short time and often enough to assure 

compliance with State regulations 

(without having to go through a time 

consuming testing process). 

Similarly, several commenters argued 

that a repeat performance test should 

not be required for affected facilities 

located inside buildings and controlled 

by either wet suppression or dry 

collection devices. In addition, multiple 

commenters stated that repeat testing is 

unnecessary for affected facilities inside 

buildings that do not have direct water 

sprays. The commenters noted that if 

initial performance testing conducted 

on these affected facilities shows 

compliance with the emission limit 

using the existing controls, and the 

proposed monthly inspections show 

that the controls are functioning, then a 

repeat Method 9 test is not necessary. 

Response: Continuous compliance 

requirements are included in this final 

rule for affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, as part of an ongoing effort to 

improve compliance with various 

Federal air emission regulations.3 As 

proposed, affected facilities (that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008) with fugitive emissions controlled 

by wet suppression water sprays are 

required to conduct the initial Method 

9 opacity test and to conduct monthly 

inspections of the direct water sprays 

according to § 60.674(b) and § 60.676(b). 

Repeat Method 9 testing is not required 

(and was not proposed) for affected 

facilities with direct water sprays 

because the monthly inspection 

requirements were determined to be 

adequate for NMPP to demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the fugitive 

emission limits. 

We agree that water carryover can be 

an adequate control measure for fugitive 

emissions for a number of affected 

facilities when sufficient moisture is 

delivered by upstream water sprays. 

Therefore, we are eliminating from this 

final rule the proposed 5-year repeat 

Method 9 test for affected facilities that 

commence construction, modification, 

or reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, and have fugitive emissions 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19303 

controlled by water carryover from 

upstream water sprays if the upstream 

water sprays are inspected according to 

the requirements in § 60.674(b) and 

§ 60.676(b) of subpart OOO. In many 

cases, the upstream water spray(s) 

responsible for controlling fugitive 

emissions from a subpart OOO affected 

facility (that commences construction, 

modification, or reconstruction without 

water sprays on or after April 22, 2008) 

will already be subject to the subpart 

OOO water spray inspection 

requirements in § 60.674(b) and 

§ 60.676(b). However, there may be 

cases where the upstream water spray(s) 

responsible for controlling fugitive 

emissions from a subpart OOO affected 

facility (without water sprays) are not 

subject to the subpart OOO water spray 

inspection requirements (e.g., because 

the upstream affected facility with water 

sprays predates the April 22, 2008, 

applicability date for monitoring). Such 

upstream water spray(s) may also be 

monitored according to § 60.674(b) and 

§ 60.676(b) by NMPP wishing to exempt 

selected affected facilities from the 5- 

year repeat testing requirements. We 

leave to the discretion of the NMPP and 

their permitting authority to determine 

which upstream water sprays (and 

whether one or more of the upstream 

water sprays) require monitoring. We 

have included § 60.674(b)(1) in this final 

rule to specify the 5-year repeat testing 

exemption and to require NMPP to 

designate (at the time of the initial 

performance test) which upstream water 

spray(s) will be periodically inspected 

for water flow to indicate continuous 

compliance with the fugitive emission 

limits for each affected facility being 

exempted from 5-year repeat 

performance testing. It is necessary to 

specify which water sprays will be 

monitored initially so it will be clear 

(for enforcement purposes) which 

affected facilities controlled by 

carryover will rely on monitoring of 

upstream water sprays versus a 5-year 

repeat Method 9 test. 

This final rule retains the proposed 

5-year repeat Method 9 testing 

requirement for affected facilities with 

fugitive emissions that are not 

controlled by direct water sprays or by 

carryover from upstream water sprays. 

We acknowledge that some State 

permits contain continuous compliance 

measures and some State and local 

agencies may routinely perform 

inspections. However, some NMPP 

permits are devoid of continuous 

compliance measures and the frequency 

of State and local inspections can vary 

considerably for NMPP. It is appropriate 

for the NMPP NSPS to include uniform 

continuous compliance measures for all 

NMPP. We considered the costs and 

burden associated with various 

frequencies of Method 9 testing and 

determined that the costs of the 5-year 

repeat Method 9 (30-minute test) are 

reasonable. Our cost analysis is 

documented in a memorandum 

available in Docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2007–1018. 

We have eliminated the proposed 

repeat 5-year testing requirement for 

affected facilities enclosed in buildings. 

Buildings function as a means of 

reducing fugitive emissions in addition 

to any control measures that are applied 

to the affected facilities within the 

building. The final monitoring 

requirements for affected facilities 

located inside of buildings are the same 

as for affected facilities that are not 

enclosed by a building (e.g., monthly 

inspections to verify water sprays are 

operating or quarterly Method 22 

inspections for dry collection devices). 

These monitoring requirements apply 

for affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

noted that EPA is proposing to allow 

Method 9 testing of up to three emission 

points at one time as long as three 

conditions are met. Most commenters 

agreed with the first two conditions but 

recommended that the third condition 

be eliminated if EPA promulgates a 7 

percent fugitive opacity limit for 

selected equipment. As proposed, the 

third condition specified that if an 

opacity reading for any one of the three 

points is within 5 percent opacity from 

the applicable standard, then the 

observer must stop taking readings for 

the other two points and continue 

reading just that single point. Most 

commenters felt that the revised 7 

percent opacity limit would prevent 

reading of more than one point at a time 

since opacity is read in 5 percent 

increments and a single reading of 5 

percent would prevent multiple point 

testing. One commenter requested that 

the second requirement that all points 

be within 70 degrees of each other be 

changed to 90 degrees. 

Response: We disagree that the three 

conditions for allowing Method 9 

readings of up to three emission points 

at one time should be eliminated. This 

provision and the three conditions were 

made available for 40 CFR part 60, 

subparts LL and OOO in 1999 and are 

well established alternative testing 

procedures. Therefore, the first two 

conditions (§§ 60.675(e)(2)(i) and (ii)) 

are being promulgated as proposed. 

However, we do agree with 

commenters that the third condition 

limits the applicability of this provision 

for affected facilities subject to the 

revised 7 percent fugitive emission 

limit. To remedy this situation, we are 

changing the wording in 

§ 60.675(e)(2)(iii). This revision will 

require the observer to focus on a single 

emission point where a single opacity 

reading suggests the point may be close 

to or exceeds the applicable standard, 

but does not unduly preclude an 

observer from observing three points at 

a time, which is more cost effective. We 

believe that this revision strikes the 

appropriate balance between accurately 

determining compliance and allowing 

facilities to conduct cost-effective 

observations. 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

supported EPA’s proposal to postpone 

initial performance testing until no later 

than 60 calendar days after resuming 

operation of the affected facility 

following a seasonal shutdown. A few 

commenters noted that severe winter 

weather and inventory control issues in 

certain parts of the country may require 

NMPP to cease operations for several 

months, and in their experience, these 

seasonal shut downs interfered with 

meeting the subpart OOO performance 

testing deadlines. Most commenters 

supported the proposed definition of 

‘‘seasonal shut down.’’ 

One commenter stated that the 

requirement to obtain prior approval for 

a seasonal shut down testing delay from 

the permitting authority may be 

virtually unworkable in practice. 

Additionally, the commenter suggested 

that a delay in performance testing 

should be allowed for reasons beyond 

just ‘‘seasonal market conditions’’ as 

denoted in the definition of ‘‘seasonal 

shut down.’’ The commenter stated that 

a shut down may occur for weatherrelated reasons not directly related to 

seasonal market conditions and also for 

cyclical reasons. According to the 

commenter, there could also be 

scenarios of equipment failure or 

weather-related shut down that are 

unforeseen and push the facility past 

the compliance demonstration date, 

without the sufficient notice to schedule 

around the shut down that EPA 

postulates. The commenter requested 

that EPA broaden section § 60.675(i) to 

allow deferral of a compliance test if the 

deadline for the initial compliance test 

falls at a time when the facility is shut 

down for a period of at least 30 days 

(regardless of the reason for the shut 

down), if the permitting authority is 

notified of the shut down and the 

deferral of compliance testing. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: It is not possible or 

necessary for subpart OOO to allow for 

deferral of performance testing for every 

situation that could affect testing. Some 

situations need to be addressed on a 

case-by-case basis. Our intent with the 

proposed definition of ‘‘seasonal shut 

down’’ and associated regulatory 

language in § 60.675(i) was to account 

for a common situation that occurs 

frequently in the nonmetallic mineral 

processing industries. Section 60.675(i) 

allows initial performance testing to be 

postponed up to 60 days after resuming 

operation following a seasonal shut 

down. We are revising the proposed 

definition of ‘‘seasonal shut down’’ to 

clarify our intent that shut downs 

eligible for the § 60.675(i) provision 

include weather conditions. We 

consider shut downs occurring for 

cyclical reasons or current economic 

conditions to be seasonal market 

conditions eligible for the § 60.675(i) 

provision as long as these conditions 

last 45 consecutive days as specified in 

the definition of ‘‘seasonal shut down.’’ 

It was not the intent of the § 60.675(i) 

provision or the definition of ‘‘seasonal 

shut down’’ to include equipment 

failures. We believe testing delays due 

to equipment failures (which could 

include failure of processing or control 

equipment) should be addressed on a 

case-by-case basis. We believe 

equipment failures should be treated on 

a case-by-case basis because the reasons 

for a given equipment failure will vary 

from facility to facility and from 

instance to instance. Further, the 

handling of a given equipment failure 

will vary depending on such factors as 

how often the facility has experienced a 

failure and what the facility has done to 

avoid equipment failure. 

We maintain that prior approval of 

the permitting authority is necessary for 

extension of the performance testing 

deadline. However, we are not 

restricting the timing or form (e.g., 

written, verbal, e-mail) of such approval 

with a formal notification procedure. 

E. Monitoring Requirements 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the proposed requirement of 

monthly inspections to ensure that 

water is flowing to the spray nozzles be 

amended to clarify that such inspections 

are not required for equipment using 

wet suppression on a seasonal basis. 

Another commenter generally supported 

the monthly inspection requirements for 

wet suppression systems, but requested 

that EPA address freezing hazards 

requiring wet suppression systems to be 

turned off during winter months. The 

commenter noted that water sprays are 

often used on transfer points during dry 

months but are turned off during wet 

months when precipitation is adequate 

to suppress fugitive dust. 

The commenter suggested that 

language be included in § 60.674(b) 

stating that you must initiate corrective 

action within 24 hours if you find that 

water is not flowing properly during an 

inspection of the water nozzles unless 

either (1) the temperature in the affected 

facility is such that water spraying 

would create a danger to personnel or 

equipment, or (2) the affected facility is 

not enclosed and measurable 

precipitation has occurred at the facility 

each day since the prior inspection. The 

commenter further suggested that in the 

event of a low-temperature condition 

preventing operation of the spray 

system or continuous precipitation 

eliminating the need for the spray 

system, the owner/operator should 

record that fact in the logbook in lieu of 

corrective action. 

Response: We recognize that some 

NMPP may use wet suppression on a 

seasonal or as needed basis (e.g., wet 

suppression may not be necessary to 

reduce fugitive emissions following a 

rain event in some instances). We also 

acknowledge the hazards that can be 

associated with wet suppression 

systems during freezing conditions for 

those NMPP that operate through winter 

months. Wet suppression water sprays 

are a common control measure applied 

to reduce fugitive emissions from NMPP 

affected facilities. The intent of the wet 

suppression water spray nozzle 

inspections is to indicate continuous 

compliance with the fugitive emission 

limits by detecting and correcting 

operational problems with the water 

sprays, including inoperable water 

sprays (regardless of the reasons for not 

operating). Affected facilities must 

operate in compliance with the subpart 

OOO fugitive emission limits at all 

times (except for periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction as described 

in the General Provisions). Therefore, 

we cannot simply refer to vague 

conditions of ‘‘temperature’’ or 

‘‘measurable precipitation’’ in subpart 

OOO, particularly since the duration of 

these conditions and their effect on dust 

suppression can be quite variable and 

site-specific (e.g., a small amount of 

precipitation on a hot day may 

evaporate quickly and do nothing to 

control fugitive emissions). 

Subpart OOO does not specify that 

any particular control technology be 

used. Rather, subpart OOO specifies 

emissions limits that must be met by 

affected facilities with fugitive 

emissions. NMPP can meet the subpart 

OOO emission limits using whatever 

mechanisms they choose (e.g., wet 

suppression water sprays, measurable 

precipitation, water carryover, etc.). 

Regardless of the mechanism for 

control, the emissions limits must be 

met continuously. 

Plants must identify the control 

mechanisms they will use to attain 

compliance with the applicable 

emission limits as part of the 

construction and/or operating 

permitting process. Plants with wet 

suppression water sprays that intend to 

cease operation of their water sprays 

due to rainfall or freezing conditions 

should specify this in their permit 

applications and/or permits. It will be at 

the discretion of the NMPP and 

permitting authority as to how 

compliance with the subpart OOO 

emission limits will be attained when 

the wet suppression system is not 

operating (considering the frequency 

and duration of such events). For 

example, if an affected facility will be 

operated for weeks or months at a time 

without its wet suppression system, 

then the permitting authority may 

request a Method 9 test while the wet 

suppression system is turned off to 

verify that compliance with the subpart 

OOO emission limits will be 

demonstrated. Once these details are 

worked out with the permitting 

authority, then logbook entries (made 

pursuant to §§ 60.674(b) and 60.676(b)) 

indicating the wet suppression system 

was not operating will be within the 

constraints of the facility’s permit. 

However, plants with wet suppression 

that do not reveal during the permitting 

process their intent to, at times, cease 

operation of their wet suppression 

system (and address how subpart OOO 

compliance will be attained during such 

times) would be subject to enforcement 

scrutiny if their wet suppression 

inspection logbook reveals periods 

when the water sprays were not 

operated. We are adding § 60.674(b)(2) 

to clarify that the logbook entry must 

identify any alternative control 

mechanism (e.g., rainfall) being used at 

the time of the monthly inspection. 

Comment: One commenter agreed that 

monthly inspection of discharge spray 

nozzles to check water flow coupled 

with a requirement to initiate corrective 

action within 24 hours (with each 

inspection and corrective action being 

recorded in a logbook) is reasonable for 

wet suppression technology. Another 

commenter requested that EPA set a 

deadline for completion of repairs so the 

wet suppression system is working 

properly (i.e., to finish what was 

started). 

Response: For wet suppression 

inspections identifying water flow 

problems, we are expanding the 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19305 

requirement in § 60.674(b) to initiate 

corrective action within 24 hours (with 

each inspection and corrective action 

being recorded in a logbook) to also 

require that the corrective action must 

be completed as expediently as 

practical. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the baghouse monitoring 

requirements in Table 6 to the lime 

manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAAA) be allowed as an 

alternative to the proposed subpart OOO 

baghouse monitoring requirements (i.e., 

quarterly 30-minute Method 22 VE 

testing with corrective action within 24 

hours or use of a bag leak detection 

system). The commenter noted that the 

lime manufacturing NESHAP has more 

stringent requirements for processed 

stone handling (PSH) units (e.g., 

including PSH storage bins, conveying 

system transfer points, etc.). 

The commenter stated that the lime 

manufacturing NESHAP requires a 

monthly Method 22 VE check. If VE are 

observed, within 1 hour of observation, 

one 6-minute Method 9 test is required. 

If the opacity limit is exceeded, 

corrective action is required in 

accordance with the operation, 

maintenance and monitoring plan. If no 

VE are observed for 6 months, Method 

22 frequency can be reduced to semiannually, and can be further reduced to 

annually if no VE are observed during 

the semi-annual check (Table 6 to 

Subpart AAAAA). 

The commenter noted that the lime 

industry has invested substantial 

resources in developing environmental 

management systems, including 

corrective action plans and lime plant 

operator training, in order to maintain 

compliance with the lime 

manufacturing NESHAP. 

Response: We agree that the VE 

observation requirements in the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR Part 

63, Subpart AAAAA) for PSH 

operations are adequate for purposes of 

demonstrating continuous compliance 

with subpart OOO because these 

requirements will ensure proper 

baghouse operation. We are adding 

§§ 60.674(e) and 60.676(b)(3) to subpart 

OOO to refer to the VE observation 

requirements and associated 

recordkeeping language in the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP. For affected 

facilities subject to those requirements, 

the recordkeeping requirements in the 

Lime Manufacturing NESHAP replace 

the subpart OOO requirements to 

maintain a logbook. Only affected 

facilities subject to the requirements for 

PSH operations in the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP are allowed to 

use the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP 

alternative to the subpart OOO baghouse 

VE inspections. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

the appropriateness of Method 22 VE 

inspections of baghouse-controlled 

sources and requested that the duration 

of the Method 22 observations be 

reduced from 30 to 15 minutes since the 

emission point can be viewed from one 

location. Another commenter thought 

the 30 minute duration for a Method 22 

test was excessive, but supported use of 

Method 22 testing for monitoring 

baghouse emissions. Although a third 

commenter believes the proposed 

Method 22 and bag leak detector (BLD) 

monitoring provisions could trigger 

corrective action requirements when the 

7 percent opacity standard is not 

exceeded, the commenter stated that the 

options as proposed (which include the 

ability to obtain site specific exceptions) 

are reasonable for baghouse technology. 

This commenter would not support a 

requirement that all baghousecontrolled affected facilities employ 

BLDs. 

Response: We believe that a quarterly 

30-minute Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–7) is a reasonable and 

appropriate method for determining the 

frequency of VE from baghouses. 

Although the method was developed for 

measuring the frequency of fugitive 

emissions, it is not limited to fugitive 

emissions points. Method 22 has been 

applied for baghouse-controlled 

emission points in a number of permits 

and rules. The use of BLD remains an 

alternative to the quarterly VE 

observations in the promulgated 

standards. 

F. Notification, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

supported reducing the 30-day advance 

notice to a 7-day notice prior to 

performance testing for Method 9 tests. 

The commenters noted that many States 

are already relaxing this requirement. 

Conversely, another commenter from 

a state agency requested that EPA retain 

the 30-day advance notice. The 

commenter stated that 7 days is not 

enough time for their regulatory staff to 

review the plan and determine if (based 

on site-specific circumstances) the 

presence of an investigator is required. 

The commenter noted that weatherrelated delays are already addressed in 

§ 60.8(d) where staff work under the 7- 

day rescheduling process. 

Response: As proposed, we are 

promulgating a 7-day advance notice 

prior to NMPP performance tests 

involving only Method 9 observations. 

We made this change because of the 

large number of NMPP that are required 

to conduct only Method 9 testing for 

fugitive emissions from affected 

facilities, because plans for NMPP 

Method 9 opacity readings require little 

review, and because Method 9 tests are 

affected by weather (visibility) and 

subject to rescheduling such that a 30- 

day advanced notification can be 

impractical for NMPP. We believe that 

7 days is a reasonable time frame for 

NMPP. However, State agencies wishing 

to require a longer time period for 

advanced notice of Method 9 

performance testing (e.g., 30 days 

instead of 7 days) have the discretion to 

do so. 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the logbook discussed in § 60.676(b)(1) 

must be made available upon request to 

the Administrator. The commenter 

requested that a hard copy be made 

available even if the logbook is kept 

electronically. 

Response: We have incorporated the 

commenter’s suggestion to specify that 

hard copies of the logbook be made 

available to the Administrator upon 

request. The Administrator (or 

permitting authority) may request either 

a hard copy or electronic copy of the 

logbook for inspection. 

G. Construction, Modification, and 

Reconstruction 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that EPA clarify wording in the 

preamble and rule regarding 

applicability of the NSPS revisions. The 

commenter noted that the date of 

commencement of construction, 

modification, or reconstruction is of 

regulatory importance for NSPS (not the 

date when construction, modification, 

or reconstruction is fully completed). 

The commenter stated that the proposal 

preamble references to ‘‘future’’ affected 

facilities are confusing and should be 

replaced with the longer but more 

rigorous description for sources for 

which construction has commenced. 

Response: We are rewording 

§ 60.674(b), (c), and (d) and 

§ 60.676(b)(1) to replace the word 

‘‘installed’’ with the terms used in the 

General Provisions (e.g., for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced on or after 

April 22, 2008). We are also omitting the 

term ‘‘future’’ and using language in the 

preamble to this final rule to clearly 

indicate that the date for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction was commenced is the 

applicability date for the NSPS 

provisions. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the proposed amendment to the like-forlike replacement language in 

§ 60.670(d)(1) to add the phrase ‘‘and 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19306 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

there is no increase in the amount of 

emissions.’’ The commenter requested 

that the version of § 60.670(d)(1) that 

has been in subpart OOO since 1985 be 

retained. The commenter stated that 

since no replacement of equipment 

would ever trigger the NSPS or new 

source review modification rules 

without an increase in the amount of 

emissions, the effect of the proposed 

change would be to remove an 

exemption that had applied to the 

replacement of equipment of equal or 

smaller size, regardless of its effect on 

emissions. 

Response: As indicated in the 

proposal, the addition of the language 

providing that the like-for-like 

replacement provision is only available 

where ‘‘there is no increase in the 

amount of emissions’’ was intended as 

a clarification rather than a change. That 

is, the Agency interprets the existing 

exemption in § 60.670(d)(1) as being 

limited to such circumstances where 

there is no increase in emissions. While 

the commenter alleges that this is a 

change, they have not identified any 

instance where the Agency interpreted 

the existing provision to permit like-forlike replacements where an emissions 

increase occurs (i.e., that the proposed 

language constitutes a change rather 

than a clarification). Accordingly, we 

disagree that we are narrowing or 

changing the regulation with the 

addition of the clarifying language. 

Moreover, contrary to the commenter’s 

contention, limiting the exemption to 

like-for-like replacements that do not 

result in an increase in emissions does 

not render the like-for-like exemption 

meaningless. The provision continues to 

allow like-for-like replacements that do 

not increase emissions, which we 

believe to be the vast majority of cases 

because the replacement units must be 

of equal or smaller size (e.g., rated 

capacity). 

H. Cost Impacts 

Comment: Several commenters argued 

that there are incremental costs 

associated with meeting the revised 

stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf and 

requested that EPA analyze these costs. 

The commenters stated that companies 

operate their equipment at a lower 

emission rate than the applicable 

standard to have a compliance margin. 

Commenters stated that the revised 

stack limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would 

require a higher-efficiency baghouse 

design and bags, resulting in 

incremental capital costs. One 

commenter stated that one or more of 

the following baghouse design 

improvements may be required: 

Decreased air-to-cloth ratio, upgraded 

bag material (i.e., membrane coated 

bags), additional baghouse chambers, 

and bag leak detectors. Commenters also 

stated that increased baghouse 

maintenance would be required if the 

tighter grain loading standard is 

implemented (e.g., more frequent bag 

replacement) and that the associated 

incremental costs should be considered. 

Response: We disagree with 

commenters that significant upgrades to 

baghouses would be required to meet a 

PM limit of 0.014 gr/dscf. Ninety-one 

percent of the stack tests we reviewed 

achieved 0.014 gr/dscf, and many of 

these tests achieved 0.014 gr/dscf with 

a substantial compliance margin. A 

level of 0.010 gr/dscf was achieved in 86 

percent of the tests and a level of 0.005 

gr/dscf was achieved in 68 percent of 

tests. Given these test results, we 

concluded at proposal that control 

systems that would be installed to meet 

a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf would be the 

same as those installed to meet the 

NSPS limit of 0.022 gr/dscf. Because 

there would be no change in control 

technology, we concluded that the 

incremental costs would be very low or 

zero. 

Although we disagree (based on the 

available NMPP stack emissions data) 

that there are any incremental costs 

associated with reducing the stack PM 

emission limit from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/ 

dscf, we evaluated the incremental costs 

suggested by commenters that could 

potentially be incurred in the event that 

some facilities choose to upgrade the 

type of baghouse they use for new 

affected facilities. Our incremental cost 

analysis is documented in a 

memorandum available in Docket EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–1018. We explored four 

scenarios in our costing analysis similar 

to the suggestions by commenters (a 

baseline scenario with a limit of 0.022 

gr/dscf and three other scenarios, A 

through C, each with a limit of 0.014 gr/ 

dscf). As suggested by commenters, the 

costs of more frequent bag replacement 

were associated with scenarios A–C. We 

disagree that bag leak detectors would 

be required to demonstrate continuous 

compliance with a limit of 0.014 gr/dscf 

since the subpart OOO revisions allow 

for a less expensive method of 

compliance (i.e., quarterly VE checks), 

and, therefore, we did not include BLD 

costs in any of the scenarios explored. 

Assuming as a worst case that all 

projected facilities would elect to 

upgrade the type of baghouse they use, 

the 5-year nationwide incremental costs 

ranged from $1.1 to 1.6 million total 

capital cost and $0.18 to 0.30 million 

total annualized cost. The worst case 

incremental cost effectiveness is less 

than $2,300 per ton of PM removed. We 

believe these worst case costs are 

acceptable and reasonable. Therefore, 

we maintain that a stack limit of 0.014 

gr/dscf represents BDT for new, 

modified, and reconstructed NMPP 

affected facilities and this limit is being 

promulgated as proposed. 

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Impacts of Final 

Amendments to Subpart OOO 

A. What are the impacts for NMPP? 

We are presenting estimates of the 

impacts for these final amendments to 

40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO that 

change the performance standards. The 

cost, environmental, and economic 

impacts presented in this section are 

expressed as incremental differences 

between the impacts of NMPP 

complying with the subpart OOO 

revisions and the current NSPS 

requirements of subpart OOO (i.e., 

baseline). The impacts are presented for 

NMPP affected facilities for which 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction is expected to commence 

over the 5 years following promulgation 

of the revised NSPS. The analyses and 

the documents referenced below can be 

found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2007–1018. 

In order to determine the incremental 

impacts of this final rule, we first 

estimated that 332 new NMPP would 

comply with subpart OOO in the 5 years 

following promulgation. For further 

detail on the methodology of these 

calculations, see Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2007–1018. 

The revisions to the subpart OOO 

emission limits for affected facilities 

that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008, do not reflect use 

of new or different control technologies, 

but are an adjustment of the limits to 

better reflect the performance of current 

(baseline) control technologies. For the 

most part, there is no difference in the 

control systems used to meet baseline 

and those that would be used to meet 

the revised emission limits for affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008. Therefore, there 

would be no difference in control costs, 

water or solid waste impacts, or actual 

emission reductions achieved as a result 

of the revisions to the emission limits. 

However, as discussed previously, we 

estimated potential incremental costs of 

upgrades to baghouse controls (e.g., 

more frequent bag replacement, 

membrane coated bags, or use of a 

multi-compartment baghouse) in the 

event that some NMPP choose to 

operate with such upgrades. We 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19307 

estimate the worst case potential 

increase in nationwide annualized cost 

associated with baghouse upgrades to be 

$300,000 per year. The effect of 

reducing the emission limits is to ensure 

that the typical performance of today’s 

control systems is achieved for affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008. The potential 

nationwide emission reduction (the 

nationwide emission reduction 

associated with lowering the PM limit 

from 0.022 to 0.014 gr/dscf) could be as 

much as 120 megagrams per year (Mg/ 

yr) (130 tons per year (tpy)) PM. These 

potential emission reductions are 

overestimated because the majority of 

control systems installed on affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008, would likely have 

resulted in emissions at or below the 

emission limits even in the absence of 

these revisions. 

There are differences in notification; 

testing; monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping (MRR) costs between 

baseline and the final revisions to 

subpart OOO. We are making some 

amendments to subpart OOO that will 

reduce costs and other amendments that 

will increase costs for affected facilities 

that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008. We estimate that 

the increase in nationwide annual cost 

associated with the MRR revisions, 

including annualized capital costs 

associated with performance testing, is 

about $630,000. The potential emissions 

reductions associated with the MRR 

revisions are estimated to be 330 Mg/yr 

(370 tpy) due to the shortened duration 

that excess emissions could occur before 

being corrected under these final testing 

and monitoring revisions. 

The estimated nationwide 5-year 

incremental emissions reductions and 

cost impacts for these amendments are 

summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. 

The overall cost-effectiveness is about 

$1,900 per ton of PM potentially 

removed. We estimate that 6 percent (or 

28 Mg/yr (25 tpy)) of the potential 

reduction in PM shown in Table 2 is PM 

less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

(PM2.5). 

TABLE 2—NATIONAL INCREMENTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACTS FOR NMPP SUBJECT TO FINAL

STANDARDS UNDER 40 CFR PART 60, SUBPART OOO (FIFTH YEAR AFTER PROMULGATION) 

Final revisions for affected facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or after April 22, 2008 

Total capital cost 

[$1,000] 

Total annual 

cost 

[$1,000/yr] 

Potential annual 

emission 

reductions 

[tons/yr] 

Potential 

costeffectiveness 

[$/ton] 

Revisions to emission limits ............................................................. 1,400 300 130 2,300 

Revisions to MRR requirements ...................................................... (1,800) 630 370 1,700 

Total .......................................................................................... (400) 930 500 1,900 

(Negative numbers appear in parentheses. There is a negative capital cost because we are reducing the costs of initial testing requirements by 

(a) allowing a 30-minute Method 9 test instead of a 1-hour test for fugitive emissions; and (b) by omitting the 7 percent stack opacity limit and associated initial testing from subpart OOO. The reduced testing costs offset the potential increase in capital cost due to baghouse upgrades.) 

B. What are the secondary impacts? 

Indirect or secondary air quality 

impacts are impacts that result from the 

increased electricity usage associated 

with the operation of control devices 

(i.e., increased secondary emissions of 

criteria pollutants from power plants). 

Energy impacts consist of the electricity 

and steam needed to operate control 

devices and other equipment that are 

required under this final rule. These 

revisions will not result in secondary air 

impacts or increase in overall energy 

demand because there is little (if any) 

incremental difference in the control 

systems used to comply with these 

revisions. 

C. What are the economic impacts? 

We performed an economic impact 

analysis that estimates changes in prices 

and output for nonmetallic minerals 

nationally using the annual compliance 

costs estimated for this final rule. All 

estimates are for the fifth year after 

promulgation since this is the year for 

which the compliance cost impacts are 

estimated. The impacts to producers 

and consumers affected by this final 

rule are very slightly higher product 

prices and outputs. Prices for products 

(processed minerals) from affected 

plants should increase by less than 0.1 

percent for the fifth year. The output of 

processed minerals should be affected 

by less than 0.1 percent for the fifth 

year. Hence, the overall economic 

impact of this final rule on the affected 

industries and their consumers should 

be negligible. For more information, 

please refer to the economic impact 

analysis for this final rule that is in the 

public docket. 

VI. No Final Action Taken With 

Respect to Subpart UUU Applicability 

As part of the proposal notice, we 

requested comment on the applicability 

of the NSPS for Mineral Calciners and 

Dryers (40 CFR Part 60, subpart UUU) 

to sand reclamation processes at metal 

foundries. We proposed to amend 

§ 60.730(b) of subpart UUU to state that 

‘‘processes for thermal reclamation of 

industrial sand at metal foundries’’ are 

not subject to the provisions of subpart 

UUU. After further consideration, we 

are not taking any final action with 

respect to this proposed amendment to 

subpart UUU at this time. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this final action 

is a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

because it may raise novel legal or 

policy issues. Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under Executive Order 12866, 

and any changes made in response to 

OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to OMB under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

These final amendments to the 

existing standards of performance for 

Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants 

add monitoring requirements for 

affected facilities that commence 

construction, modification, or 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19308 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, while eliminating other 

requirements. We have revised the 

information collection request (ICR) for 

the existing rule. 

These final amendments to the 

standards of performance for NMPP for 

affected facilities include a reduction in 

Method 9 test duration for fugitive 

emissions, exemption of wet material 

processing operations, and changes to 

simplify the notification requirements. 

Additional revisions to affected 

facilities that commence construction, 

modification, or reconstruction on or 

after April 22, 2008, include changes to 

emission limits, elimination of the stack 

opacity limit, and addition of periodic 

monitoring requirements. The 

monitoring requirements include 

periodic inspections of water sprays and 

baghouse VE. We have minimized the 

burden associated with these 

monitoring requirements by selecting 

longer frequencies for the requirements 

(e.g., repeat tests every 5 years as 

opposed to annually; monthly 

inspections of water sprays as opposed 

to daily, etc.); minimizing duplication of 

continuous compliance measures; and 

by not specifying additional reporting 

requirements for the periodic inspection 

provisions. These requirements are 

based on recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements in the NSPS General 

Provisions in 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, 

and on specific requirements in subpart 

OOO which are mandatory for all 

operators subject to NSPS. These 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are specifically authorized 

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

7414). All information submitted to EPA 

pursuant to the recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for which a 

claim of confidentiality is made is 

safeguarded according to EPA policies 

set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 11,330 labor-hours per year at a 

cost of $1,030,642 per year. The 

annualized capital costs are estimated at 

$154,577 per year. There are no 

estimated annual operation and 

maintenance costs. We note that 

information collection costs to industry 

are also included in the incremental 

cost impacts presented in section VII of 

this preamble. Therefore, the burden 

costs presented in the ICR are not 

additional costs incurred by sources 

subject to subpart OOO. 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. OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations are listed in 40 

CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved 

by OMB, the Agency will publish a 

technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 

in the Federal Register to display the 

OMB control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impact 

of these revisions to subpart OOO on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business whose parent 

company has no more than 500 

employees, depending on the size 

definition for the affected NAICS code 

(as defined by Small Business 

Administration (SBA) size standards 

found at http://www.sba.gov/idc/

groups/public/documents/

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf); 

(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 

impact of these revisions to subpart 

OOO on small entities, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. We estimate 

that up to 96 percent (318) of the 332 

entities of the projected new NMPP 

could potentially be classified as small 

entities according to the SBA small 

business size standards for industries 

identified as affected by today’s 

revisions. No small entities are expected 

to incur an annualized compliance cost 

of more than 0.10 percent to comply 

with today’s action. For more 

information, please refer to the 

economic impact analysis that is in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Although this action would not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this action on small entities 

by reducing the test duration for fugitive 

emissions, exempting wet material 

processing operations, simplifying 

certain notification requirements, 

eliminating the stack opacity limit, and 

selecting relatively low-cost repeat 

testing and monitoring provisions. In 

addition, certain plants operating at 

small capacities were exempted from 

subpart OOO due to economic 

considerations when the standards were 

originally developed. These revisions to 

subpart OOO do not affect these 

exempted small plants; that is, they 

continue to be exempted from the 

standards. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final 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 one year. As discussed earlier in 

this preamble, the estimated 

expenditures for the private sector in 

the fifth year after promulgation are 

$0.93 million. Thus, this final rule is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This final 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. This 

final action contains no requirements 

that apply to such governments, 

imposes no obligations upon them, and 

will not result in expenditures by them 

of $100 million or more in any one year 

or any disproportionate impacts on 

them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This final rule 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. None of the 

affected facilities are owned or operated 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19309 

by State governments. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this final 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This final action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It 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. 

This final rule imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of specified 

industrial facilities and not tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only 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 technology 

performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This final action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 18355, May 22, 

2001) because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. We have 

concluded that this final rule is not 

likely to have any adverse energy effects 

because the only energy requirements 

associated with this action result from 

monitoring equipment. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs 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. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. EPA has decided to use EPA 

Methods 5, 5I, 9, 17, and 22, of 40 CFR 

60, Appendix A. The Agency conducted 

a search to identify potentially 

applicable VCS. We identified no 

standards for Methods 9 and 22, and 

none were brought to our attention in 

public comments. While the Agency 

identified five VCS as being potentially 

applicable to EPA Methods 5, 5I, or 17, 

we have decided not to use them in this 

rulemaking. The use of these VCS 

would be impractical for the purposes of 

this final rule. See the docket of this 

final rule for the reasons for these 

determinations on the standards. 

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 environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice 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. 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. This final rule 

will reduce emissions of PM from all 

new, reconstructed, or modified affected 

facilities at NMPP, decreasing the 

amount of such emissions to which all 

affected populations are exposed. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this final rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A Major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This final rule will be effective 

April 28, 2009. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 16, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

title 40, chapter I, part 60 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. 

Subpart OOO—[AMENDED] 

■ 2. Revise subpart OOO to read as 

follows: 

Subpart OOO—Standards of 

Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants 

Sec. 

60.670 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

60.671 Definitions. 

60.672 Standard for particulate matter (PM). 

60.673 Reconstruction. 

60.674 Monitoring of operations. 

60.675 Test methods and procedures. 

60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

Tables to Subpart OOO of Part 60 

Table 1 to Subpart OOO—Exceptions to 

Applicability of Subpart A to Subpart 

OOO 

Table 2 to Subpart OOO—Stack Emission 

Limits for Affected Facilities With 

Capture Systems 

Table 3 to Subpart OOO—Fugitive Emission 

Limits 

Subpart OOO—Standards of 

Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing Plants 

§ 60.670 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a)(1) Except as provided in 

paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (c), and (d) of this 

section, the provisions of this subpart 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19310 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

are applicable to the following affected 

facilities in fixed or portable 

nonmetallic mineral processing plants: 

each crusher, grinding mill, screening 

operation, bucket elevator, belt 

conveyor, bagging operation, storage 

bin, enclosed truck or railcar loading 

station. Also, crushers and grinding 

mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that 

reduce the size of nonmetallic minerals 

embedded in recycled asphalt pavement 

and subsequent affected facilities up to, 

but not including, the first storage silo 

or bin are subject to the provisions of 

this subpart. 

(2) The provisions of this subpart do 

not apply to the following operations: 

All facilities located in underground 

mines; plants without crushers or 

grinding mills above ground; and wet 

material processing operations (as 

defined in § 60.671). 

(b) An affected facility that is subject 

to the provisions of subparts F or I of 

this part or that follows in the plant 

process any facility subject to the 

provisions of subparts F or I of this part 

is not subject to the provisions of this 

subpart. 

(c) Facilities at the following plants 

are not subject to the provisions of this 

subpart: 

(1) Fixed sand and gravel plants and 

crushed stone plants with capacities, as 

defined in § 60.671, of 23 megagrams 

per hour (25 tons per hour) or less; 

(2) Portable sand and gravel plants 

and crushed stone plants with 

capacities, as defined in § 60.671, of 136 

megagrams per hour (150 tons per hour) 

or less; and 

(3) Common clay plants and pumice 

plants with capacities, as defined in 

§ 60.671, of 9 megagrams per hour (10 

tons per hour) or less. 

(d)(1) When an existing facility is 

replaced by a piece of equipment of 

equal or smaller size, as defined in 

§ 60.671, having the same function as 

the existing facility, and there is no 

increase in the amount of emissions, the 

new facility is exempt from the 

provisions of §§ 60.672, 60.674, and 

60.675 except as provided for in 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

(2) An owner or operator complying 

with paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

shall submit the information required in 

§ 60.676(a). 

(3) An owner or operator replacing all 

existing facilities in a production line 

with new facilities does not qualify for 

the exemption described in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section and must comply 

with the provisions of §§ 60.672, 60.674 

and 60.675. 

(e) An affected facility under 

paragraph (a) of this section that 

commences construction, modification, 

or reconstruction after August 31, 1983, 

is subject to the requirements of this 

part. 

(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the 

provisions of subpart A of this part 60 

that do not apply to owners and 

operators of affected facilities subject to 

this subpart or that apply with certain 

exceptions. 

§ 60.671 Definitions. 

All terms used in this subpart, but not 

specifically defined in this section, shall 

have the meaning given them in the Act 

and in subpart A of this part. 

Bagging operation means the 

mechanical process by which bags are 

filled with nonmetallic minerals. 

Belt conveyor means a conveying 

device that transports material from one 

location to another by means of an 

endless belt that is carried on a series of 

idlers and routed around a pulley at 

each end. 

Bucket elevator means a conveying 

device of nonmetallic minerals 

consisting of a head and foot assembly 

which supports and drives an endless 

single or double strand chain or belt to 

which buckets are attached. 

Building means any frame structure 

with a roof. 

Capacity means the cumulative rated 

capacity of all initial crushers that are 

part of the plant. 

Capture system means the equipment 

(including enclosures, hoods, ducts, 

fans, dampers, etc.) used to capture and 

transport particulate matter generated 

by one or more affected facilities to a 

control device. 

Control device means the air pollution 

control equipment used to reduce 

particulate matter emissions released to 

the atmosphere from one or more 

affected facilities at a nonmetallic 

mineral processing plant. 

Conveying system means a device for 

transporting materials from one piece of 

equipment or location to another 

location within a plant. Conveying 

systems include but are not limited to 

the following: Feeders, belt conveyors, 

bucket elevators and pneumatic 

systems. 

Crush or Crushing means to reduce 

the size of nonmetallic mineral material 

by means of physical impaction of the 

crusher or grinding mill upon the 

material. 

Crusher means a machine used to 

crush any nonmetallic minerals, and 

includes, but is not limited to, the 

following types: Jaw, gyratory, cone, 

roll, rod mill, hammermill, and 

impactor. 

Enclosed truck or railcar loading 

station means that portion of a 

nonmetallic mineral processing plant 

where nonmetallic minerals are loaded 

by an enclosed conveying system into 

enclosed trucks or railcars. 

Fixed plant means any nonmetallic 

mineral processing plant at which the 

processing equipment specified in 

§ 60.670(a) is attached by a cable, chain, 

turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except 

electrical connections) to any anchor, 

slab, or structure including bedrock. 

Fugitive emission means particulate 

matter that is not collected by a capture 

system and is released to the 

atmosphere at the point of generation. 

Grinding mill means a machine used 

for the wet or dry fine crushing of any 

nonmetallic mineral. Grinding mills 

include, but are not limited to, the 

following types: Hammer, roller, rod, 

pebble and ball, and fluid energy. The 

grinding mill includes the air conveying 

system, air separator, or air classifier, 

where such systems are used. 

Initial crusher means any crusher into 

which nonmetallic minerals can be fed 

without prior crushing in the plant. 

Nonmetallic mineral means any of the 

following minerals or any mixture of 

which the majority is any of the 

following minerals: 

(1) Crushed and Broken Stone, 

including Limestone, Dolomite, Granite, 

Traprock, Sandstone, Quartz, Quartzite, 

Marl, Marble, Slate, Shale, Oil Shale, 

and Shell. 

(2) Sand and Gravel. 

(3) Clay including Kaolin, Fireclay, 

Bentonite, Fuller’s Earth, Ball Clay, and 

Common Clay. 

(4) Rock Salt. 

(5) Gypsum (natural or synthetic). 

(6) Sodium Compounds, including 

Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Chloride, 

and Sodium Sulfate. 

(7) Pumice. 

(8) Gilsonite. 

(9) Talc and Pyrophyllite. 

(10) Boron, including Borax, Kernite, 

and Colemanite. 

(11) Barite. 

(12) Fluorospar. 

(13) Feldspar. 

(14) Diatomite. 

(15) Perlite. 

(16) Vermiculite. 

(17) Mica. 

(18) Kyanite, including Andalusite, 

Sillimanite, Topaz, and Dumortierite. 

Nonmetallic mineral processing plant 

means any combination of equipment 

that is used to crush or grind any 

nonmetallic mineral wherever located, 

including lime plants, power plants, 

steel mills, asphalt concrete plants, 

portland cement plants, or any other 

facility processing nonmetallic minerals 

except as provided in § 60.670 (b) and 

(c). 

Portable plant means any nonmetallic 

mineral processing plant that is 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19311 

mounted on any chassis or skids and 

may be moved by the application of a 

lifting or pulling force. In addition, 

there shall be no cable, chain, 

turnbuckle, bolt or other means (except 

electrical connections) by which any 

piece of equipment is attached or 

clamped to any anchor, slab, or 

structure, including bedrock that must 

be removed prior to the application of 

a lifting or pulling force for the purpose 

of transporting the unit. 

Production line means all affected 

facilities (crushers, grinding mills, 

screening operations, bucket elevators, 

belt conveyors, bagging operations, 

storage bins, and enclosed truck and 

railcar loading stations) which are 

directly connected or are connected 

together by a conveying system. 

Saturated material means, for 

purposes of this subpart, mineral 

material with sufficient surface moisture 

such that particulate matter emissions 

are not generated from processing of the 

material through screening operations, 

bucket elevators and belt conveyors. 

Material that is wetted solely by wet 

suppression systems is not considered 

to be ‘‘saturated’’ for purposes of this 

definition. 

Screening operation means a device 

for separating material according to size 

by passing undersize material through 

one or more mesh surfaces (screens) in 

series, and retaining oversize material 

on the mesh surfaces (screens). Grizzly 

feeders associated with truck dumping 

and static (non-moving) grizzlies used 

anywhere in the nonmetallic mineral 

processing plant are not considered to 

be screening operations. 

Seasonal shut down means shut down 

of an affected facility for a period of at 

least 45 consecutive days due to 

weather or seasonal market conditions. 

Size means the rated capacity in tons 

per hour of a crusher, grinding mill, 

bucket elevator, bagging operation, or 

enclosed truck or railcar loading station; 

the total surface area of the top screen 

of a screening operation; the width of a 

conveyor belt; and the rated capacity in 

tons of a storage bin. 

Stack emission means the particulate 

matter that is released to the atmosphere 

from a capture system. 

Storage bin means a facility for 

storage (including surge bins) of 

nonmetallic minerals prior to further 

processing or loading. 

Transfer point means a point in a 

conveying operation where the 

nonmetallic mineral is transferred to or 

from a belt conveyor except where the 

nonmetallic mineral is being transferred 

to a stockpile. 

Truck dumping means the unloading 

of nonmetallic minerals from movable 

vehicles designed to transport 

nonmetallic minerals from one location 

to another. Movable vehicles include 

but are not limited to: Trucks, front end 

loaders, skip hoists, and railcars. 

Vent means an opening through 

which there is mechanically induced air 

flow for the purpose of exhausting from 

a building air carrying particulate matter 

emissions from one or more affected 

facilities. 

Wet material processing operation(s) 

means any of the following: 

(1) Wet screening operations (as 

defined in this section) and subsequent 

screening operations, bucket elevators 

and belt conveyors in the production 

line that process saturated materials (as 

defined in this section) up to the first 

crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in 

the production line; or 

(2) Screening operations, bucket 

elevators and belt conveyors in the 

production line downstream of wet 

mining operations (as defined in this 

section) that process saturated materials 

(as defined in this section) up to the first 

crusher, grinding mill or storage bin in 

the production line. 

Wet mining operation means a mining 

or dredging operation designed and 

operated to extract any nonmetallic 

mineral regulated under this subpart 

from deposits existing at or below the 

water table, where the nonmetallic 

mineral is saturated with water. 

Wet screening operation means a 

screening operation at a nonmetallic 

mineral processing plant which removes 

unwanted material or which separates 

marketable fines from the product by a 

washing process which is designed and 

operated at all times such that the 

product is saturated with water. 

§ 60.672 Standard for particulate matter 

(PM). 

(a) Affected facilities must meet the 

stack emission limits and compliance 

requirements in Table 2 of this subpart 

within 60 days after achieving the 

maximum production rate at which the 

affected facility will be operated, but not 

later than 180 days after initial startup 

as required under § 60.8. The 

requirements in Table 2 of this subpart 

apply for affected facilities with capture 

systems used to capture and transport 

particulate matter to a control device. 

(b) Affected facilities must meet the 

fugitive emission limits and compliance 

requirements in Table 3 of this subpart 

within 60 days after achieving the 

maximum production rate at which the 

affected facility will be operated, but not 

later than 180 days after initial startup 

as required under § 60.11. The 

requirements in Table 3 of this subpart 

apply for fugitive emissions from 

affected facilities without capture 

systems and for fugitive emissions 

escaping capture systems. 

(c) [Reserved] 

(d) Truck dumping of nonmetallic 

minerals into any screening operation, 

feed hopper, or crusher is exempt from 

the requirements of this section. 

(e) If any transfer point on a conveyor 

belt or any other affected facility is 

enclosed in a building, then each 

enclosed affected facility must comply 

with the emission limits in paragraphs 

(a) and (b) of this section, or the 

building enclosing the affected facility 

or facilities must comply with the 

following emission limits: 

(1) Fugitive emissions from the 

building openings (except for vents as 

defined in § 60.671) must not exceed 7 

percent opacity; and 

(2) Vents (as defined in § 60.671) in 

the building must meet the applicable 

stack emission limits and compliance 

requirements in Table 2 of this subpart. 

(f) Any baghouse that controls 

emissions from only an individual, 

enclosed storage bin is exempt from the 

applicable stack PM concentration limit 

(and associated performance testing) in 

Table 2 of this subpart but must meet 

the applicable stack opacity limit and 

compliance requirements in Table 2 of 

this subpart. This exemption from the 

stack PM concentration limit does not 

apply for multiple storage bins with 

combined stack emissions. 

§ 60.673 Reconstruction. 

(a) The cost of replacement of orecontact surfaces on processing 

equipment shall not be considered in 

calculating either the ‘‘fixed capital cost 

of the new components’’ or the ‘‘fixed 

capital cost that would be required to 

construct a comparable new facility’’ 

under § 60.15. Ore-contact surfaces are 

crushing surfaces; screen meshes, bars, 

and plates; conveyor belts; and elevator 

buckets. 

(b) Under § 60.15, the ‘‘fixed capital 

cost of the new components’’ includes 

the fixed capital cost of all depreciable 

components (except components 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section) which are or will be replaced 

pursuant to all continuous programs of 

component replacement commenced 

within any 2-year period following 

August 31, 1983. 

§ 60.674 Monitoring of operations. 

(a) The owner or operator of any 

affected facility subject to the provisions 

of this subpart which uses a wet 

scrubber to control emissions shall 

install, calibrate, maintain and operate 

the following monitoring devices: 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19312 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(1) A device for the continuous 

measurement of the pressure loss of the 

gas stream through the scrubber. The 

monitoring device must be certified by 

the manufacturer to be accurate within 

±250 pascals ±1 inch water gauge 

pressure and must be calibrated on an 

annual basis in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(2) A device for the continuous 

measurement of the scrubbing liquid 

flow rate to the wet scrubber. The 

monitoring device must be certified by 

the manufacturer to be accurate within 

±5 percent of design scrubbing liquid 

flow rate and must be calibrated on an 

annual basis in accordance with 

manufacturer’s instructions. 

(b) The owner or operator of any 

affected facility for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction 

commenced on or after April 22, 2008, 

that uses wet suppression to control 

emissions from the affected facility must 

perform monthly periodic inspections to 

check that water is flowing to discharge 

spray nozzles in the wet suppression 

system. The owner or operator must 

initiate corrective action within 24 

hours and complete corrective action as 

expediently as practical if the owner or 

operator finds that water is not flowing 

properly during an inspection of the 

water spray nozzles. The owner or 

operator must record each inspection of 

the water spray nozzles, including the 

date of each inspection and any 

corrective actions taken, in the logbook 

required under § 60.676(b). 

(1) If an affected facility relies on 

water carryover from upstream water 

sprays to control fugitive emissions, 

then that affected facility is exempt from 

the 5-year repeat testing requirement 

specified in Table 3 of this subpart 

provided that the affected facility meets 

the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and 

(ii) of this section: 

(i) The owner or operator of the 

affected facility conducts periodic 

inspections of the upstream water 

spray(s) that are responsible for 

controlling fugitive emissions from the 

affected facility. These inspections are 

conducted according to paragraph (b) of 

this section and § 60.676(b), and 

(ii) The owner or operator of the 

affected facility designates which 

upstream water spray(s) will be 

periodically inspected at the time of the 

initial performance test required under 

§ 60.11 of this part and § 60.675 of this 

subpart. 

(2) If an affected facility that routinely 

uses wet suppression water sprays 

ceases operation of the water sprays or 

is using a control mechanism to reduce 

fugitive emissions other than water 

sprays during the monthly inspection 

(for example, water from recent rainfall), 

the logbook entry required under 

§ 60.676(b) must specify the control 

mechanism being used instead of the 

water sprays. 

(c) Except as specified in paragraph 

(d) or (e) of this section, the owner or 

operator of any affected facility for 

which construction, modification, or 

reconstruction commenced on or after 

April 22, 2008, that uses a baghouse to 

control emissions must conduct 

quarterly 30-minute visible emissions 

inspections using EPA Method 22 (40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–7). The 

Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7) test shall be conducted while the 

baghouse is operating. The test is 

successful if no visible emissions are 

observed. If any visible emissions are 

observed, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility must initiate corrective 

action within 24 hours to return the 

baghouse to normal operation. The 

owner or operator must record each 

Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7) test, including the date and any 

corrective actions taken, in the logbook 

required under § 60.676(b). The owner 

or operator of the affected facility may 

establish a different baghouse-specific 

success level for the visible emissions 

test (other than no visible emissions) by 

conducting a PM performance test 

according to § 60.675(b) simultaneously 

with a Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–7) to determine what 

constitutes normal visible emissions 

from that affected facility’s baghouse 

when it is in compliance with the 

applicable PM concentration limit in 

Table 2 of this subpart. The revised 

visible emissions success level must be 

incorporated into the permit for the 

affected facility. 

(d) As an alternative to the periodic 

Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7) visible emissions inspections 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, the owner or operator of any 

affected facility for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction 

commenced on or after April 22, 2008, 

that uses a baghouse to control 

emissions may use a bag leak detection 

system. The owner or operator must 

install, operate, and maintain the bag 

leak detection system according to 

paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) Each bag leak detection system 

must meet the specifications and 

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) 

through (viii) of this section. 

(i) The bag leak detection system must 

be certified by the manufacturer to be 

capable of detecting PM emissions at 

concentrations of 1 milligram per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains 

per actual cubic foot) or less. 

(ii) The bag leak detection system 

sensor must provide output of relative 

PM loadings. 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). 

(iii) The bag leak detection system 

must be equipped with an alarm system 

that will sound when the system detects 

an increase in relative particulate 

loading over the alarm set point 

established according to paragraph 

(d)(1)(iv) of this section, and the alarm 

must be located such that it can be 

heard by the appropriate plant 

personnel. 

(iv) In the initial adjustment of the bag 

leak detection system, the owner or 

operator must establish, at a minimum, 

the baseline output by adjusting the 

sensitivity (range) and the averaging 

period of the device, the alarm set 

points, and the alarm delay time. 

(v) 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 in paragraph 

(d)(1)(vi) of this section. 

(vi) 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 by 

paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

(vii) The owner or operator must 

install the bag leak detection sensor 

downstream of the fabric filter. 

(viii) Where multiple detectors are 

required, the system’s instrumentation 

and alarm may be shared among 

detectors. 

(2) The owner or operator of the 

affected facility must develop and 

submit to the Administrator or 

delegated authority for approval of a 

site-specific monitoring plan for each 

bag leak detection system. The owner or 

operator must operate and maintain the 

bag leak detection system according to 

the site-specific monitoring plan at all 

times. Each monitoring plan must 

describe the items in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) 

through (vi) of this section. 

(i) Installation of the bag leak 

detection system; 

(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of 

the bag leak detection system, including 

how the alarm set-point will be 

established; 

(iii) Operation of the bag leak 

detection system, including quality 

assurance procedures; 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19313 

(iv) How the bag leak detection 

system will be maintained, including a 

routine maintenance schedule and spare 

parts inventory list; 

(v) How the bag leak detection system 

output will be recorded and stored; and 

(vi) Corrective action procedures as 

specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this 

section. In approving the site-specific 

monitoring plan, the Administrator or 

delegated authority may allow owners 

and operators more than 3 hours to 

alleviate a specific condition that causes 

an alarm if the owner or operator 

identifies in the monitoring plan this 

specific condition as one that could lead 

to an alarm, adequately explains why it 

is not feasible to alleviate this condition 

within 3 hours of the time the alarm 

occurs, and demonstrates that the 

requested time will ensure alleviation of 

this condition as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

(3) For each bag leak detection 

system, the owner or operator must 

initiate procedures to determine the 

cause of every alarm within 1 hour of 

the alarm. Except as provided in 

paragraph (d)(2)(vi) of this section, the 

owner or operator must alleviate the 

cause of the alarm within 3 hours of the 

alarm by taking whatever corrective 

action(s) are necessary. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to the following: 

(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air 

leaks, torn or broken bags or filter 

media, or any other condition that may 

cause an increase in PM emissions; 

(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter 

media; 

(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter 

media or otherwise repairing the control 

device; 

(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter 

compartment; 

(v) Cleaning the bag leak detection 

system probe or otherwise repairing the 

bag leak detection system; or 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the PM emissions. 

(e) As an alternative to the periodic 

Method 22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–7) visible emissions inspections 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, the owner or operator of any 

affected facility that is subject to the 

requirements for processed stone 

handling operations in the Lime 

Manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 

63, subpart AAAAA) may follow the 

continuous compliance requirements in 

row 1 items (i) through (iii) of Table 6 

to Subpart AAAAA of 40 CFR part 63. 

§ 60.675 Test methods and procedures. 

(a) In conducting the performance 

tests required in § 60.8, the owner or 

operator shall use as reference methods 

and procedures the test methods in 

appendices A–1 through A–7 of this 

part or other methods and procedures as 

specified in this section, except as 

provided in § 60.8(b). Acceptable 

alternative methods and procedures are 

given in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(b) The owner or operator shall 

determine compliance with the PM 

standards in § 60.672(a) as follows: 

(1) Except as specified in paragraphs 

(e)(3) and (4) of this section, Method 5 

of Appendix A–3 of this part or Method 

17 of Appendix A–6 of this part shall be 

used to determine the particulate matter 

concentration. The sample volume shall 

be at least 1.70 dscm (60 dscf). For 

Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A– 

3), if the gas stream being sampled is at 

ambient temperature, the sampling 

probe and filter may be operated 

without heaters. If the gas stream is 

above ambient temperature, the 

sampling probe and filter may be 

operated at a temperature high enough, 

but no higher than 121 °C (250 °F), to 

prevent water condensation on the 

filter. 

(2) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this 

part and the procedures in § 60.11 shall 

be used to determine opacity. 

(c)(1) In determining compliance with 

the particulate matter standards in 

§ 60.672(b) or § 60.672(e)(1), the owner 

or operator shall use Method 9 of 

Appendix A–4 of this part and the 

procedures in § 60.11, with the 

following additions: 

(i) The minimum distance between 

the observer and the emission source 

shall be 4.57 meters (15 feet). 

(ii) The observer shall, when possible, 

select a position that minimizes 

interference from other fugitive 

emission sources (e.g., road dust). The 

required observer position relative to 

the sun (Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of 

this part, Section 2.1) must be followed. 

(iii) For affected facilities using wet 

dust suppression for particulate matter 

control, a visible mist is sometimes 

generated by the spray. The water mist 

must not be confused with particulate 

matter emissions and is not to be 

considered a visible emission. When a 

water mist of this nature is present, the 

observation of emissions is to be made 

at a point in the plume where the mist 

is no longer visible. 

(2)(i) In determining compliance with 

the opacity of stack emissions from any 

baghouse that controls emissions only 

from an individual enclosed storage bin 

under § 60.672(f) of this subpart, using 

Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–4), the duration of the Method 9 (40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) 

observations shall be 1 hour (ten 6- 

minute averages). 

(ii) The duration of the Method 9 (40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) 

observations may be reduced to the 

duration the affected facility operates 

(but not less than 30 minutes) for 

baghouses that control storage bins or 

enclosed truck or railcar loading 

stations that operate for less than 1 hour 

at a time. 

(3) When determining compliance 

with the fugitive emissions standard for 

any affected facility described under 

§ 60.672(b) or § 60.672(e)(1) of this 

subpart, the duration of the Method 9 

(40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) 

observations must be 30 minutes (five 

6-minute averages). Compliance with 

the applicable fugitive emission limits 

in Table 3 of this subpart must be based 

on the average of the five 6-minute 

averages. 

(d) To demonstrate compliance with 

the fugitive emission limits for 

buildings specified in § 60.672(e)(1), the 

owner or operator must complete the 

testing specified in paragraph (d)(1) and 

(2) of this section. Performance tests 

must be conducted while all affected 

facilities inside the building are 

operating. 

(1) If the building encloses any 

affected facility that commences 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction on or after April 22, 

2008, the owner or operator of the 

affected facility must conduct an initial 

Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix 

A–4) performance test according to this 

section and § 60.11. 

(2) If the building encloses only 

affected facilities that commenced 

construction, modification, or 

reconstruction before April 22, 2008, 

and the owner or operator has 

previously conducted an initial Method 

22 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–7) 

performance test showing zero visible 

emissions, then the owner or operator 

has demonstrated compliance with the 

opacity limit in § 60.672(e)(1). If the 

owner or operator has not conducted an 

initial performance test for the building 

before April 22, 2008, then the owner or 

operator must conduct an initial Method 

9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) 

performance test according to this 

section and § 60.11 to show compliance 

with the opacity limit in § 60.672(e)(1). 

(e) The owner or operator may use the 

following as alternatives to the reference 

methods and procedures specified in 

this section: 

(1) For the method and procedure of 

paragraph (c) of this section, if 

emissions from two or more facilities 

continuously interfere so that the 

opacity of fugitive emissions from an 

individual affected facility cannot be 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19314 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

read, either of the following procedures 

may be used: 

(i) Use for the combined emission 

stream the highest fugitive opacity 

standard applicable to any of the 

individual affected facilities 

contributing to the emissions stream. 

(ii) Separate the emissions so that the 

opacity of emissions from each affected 

facility can be read. 

(2) A single visible emission observer 

may conduct visible emission 

observations for up to three fugitive, 

stack, or vent emission points within a 

15-second interval if the following 

conditions are met: 

(i) No more than three emission 

points may be read concurrently. 

(ii) All three emission points must be 

within a 70 degree viewing sector or 

angle in front of the observer such that 

the proper sun position can be 

maintained for all three points. 

(iii) If an opacity reading for any one 

of the three emission points equals or 

exceeds the applicable standard, then 

the observer must stop taking readings 

for the other two points and continue 

reading just that single point. 

(3) Method 5I of Appendix A–3 of this 

part may be used to determine the PM 

concentration as an alternative to the 

methods specified in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. Method 5I (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–3) may be useful for 

affected facilities that operate for less 

than 1 hour at a time such as (but not 

limited to) storage bins or enclosed 

truck or railcar loading stations. 

(4) In some cases, velocities of 

exhaust gases from building vents may 

be too low to measure accurately with 

the type S pitot tube specified in EPA 

Method 2 of Appendix A–1 of this part 

[i.e., velocity head <1.3 mm H2O (0.05 

in. H2O)] and referred to in EPA Method 

5 of Appendix A–3 of this part. For 

these conditions, the owner or operator 

may determine the average gas flow rate 

produced by the power fans (e.g., from 

vendor-supplied fan curves) to the 

building vent. The owner or operator 

may calculate the average gas velocity at 

the building vent measurement site 

using Equation 1 of this section and use 

this average velocity in determining and 

maintaining isokinetic sampling rates. 

v Q

A e

f

e

= ( ) Eq. 1

Where: 

Ve = average building vent velocity (feet per 

minute); 

Qf = average fan flow rate (cubic feet per 

minute); and 

Ae = area of building vent and measurement 

location (square feet). 

(f) To comply with § 60.676(d), the 

owner or operator shall record the 

measurements as required in § 60.676(c) 

using the monitoring devices in § 60.674 

(a)(1) and (2) during each particulate 

matter run and shall determine the 

averages. 

(g) For performance tests involving 

only Method 9 (40 CFR part 60 

Appendix A–4) testing, the owner or 

operator may reduce the 30-day advance 

notification of performance test in 

§ 60.7(a)(6) and 60.8(d) to a 7-day 

advance notification. 

(h) [Reserved] 

(i) If the initial performance test date 

for an affected facility falls during a 

seasonal shut down (as defined in 

§ 60.671 of this subpart) of the affected 

facility, then with approval from the 

permitting authority, the owner or 

operator may postpone the initial 

performance test until no later than 60 

calendar days after resuming operation 

of the affected facility. 

§ 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping. 

(a) Each owner or operator seeking to 

comply with § 60.670(d) shall submit to 

the Administrator the following 

information about the existing facility 

being replaced and the replacement 

piece of equipment. 

(1) For a crusher, grinding mill, 

bucket elevator, bagging operation, or 

enclosed truck or railcar loading station: 

(i) The rated capacity in megagrams or 

tons per hour of the existing facility 

being replaced and 

(ii) The rated capacity in tons per 

hour of the replacement equipment. 

(2) For a screening operation: 

(i) The total surface area of the top 

screen of the existing screening 

operation being replaced and 

(ii) The total surface area of the top 

screen of the replacement screening 

operation. 

(3) For a conveyor belt: 

(i) The width of the existing belt being 

replaced and 

(ii) The width of the replacement 

conveyor belt. 

(4) For a storage bin: 

(i) The rated capacity in megagrams or 

tons of the existing storage bin being 

replaced and 

(ii) The rated capacity in megagrams 

or tons of replacement storage bins. 

(b)(1) Owners or operators of affected 

facilities (as defined in §§ 60.670 and 

60.671) for which construction, 

modification, or reconstruction 

commenced on or after April 22, 2008, 

must record each periodic inspection 

required under § 60.674(b) or (c), 

including dates and any corrective 

actions taken, in a logbook (in written 

or electronic format). The owner or 

operator must keep the logbook onsite 

and make hard or electronic copies 

(whichever is requested) of the logbook 

available to the Administrator upon 

request. 

(2) For each bag leak detection system 

installed and operated according to 

§ 60.674(d), the owner or operator must 

keep the records specified in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Records of the bag leak detection 

system output; 

(ii) Records of bag leak detection 

system adjustments, including the date 

and time of the adjustment, the initial 

bag leak detection system settings, and 

the final bag leak detection system 

settings; and 

(iii) The date and time of all bag leak 

detection system alarms, the time that 

procedures to determine the cause of the 

alarm were initiated, the cause of the 

alarm, an explanation of the actions 

taken, the date and time the cause of the 

alarm was alleviated, and whether the 

cause of the alarm was alleviated within 

3 hours of the alarm. 

(3) The owner or operator of each 

affected facility demonstrating 

compliance according to § 60.674(e) by 

following the requirements for 

processed stone handling operations in 

the Lime Manufacturing NESHAP (40 

CFR part 63, subpart AAAAA) must 

maintain records of visible emissions 

observations required by § 63.7132(a)(3) 

and (b) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

AAAAA. 

(c) During the initial performance test 

of a wet scrubber, and daily thereafter, 

the owner or operator shall record the 

measurements of both the change in 

pressure of the gas stream across the 

scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow 

rate. 

(d) After the initial performance test 

of a wet scrubber, the owner or operator 

shall submit semiannual reports to the 

Administrator of occurrences when the 

measurements of the scrubber pressure 

loss and liquid flow rate decrease by 

more than 30 percent from the average 

determined during the most recent 

performance test. 

(e) The reports required under 

paragraph (d) of this section shall be 

postmarked within 30 days following 

end of the second and fourth calendar 

quarters. 

(f) The owner or operator of any 

affected facility shall submit written 

reports of the results of all performance 

tests conducted to demonstrate 

compliance with the standards set forth 

in § 60.672 of this subpart, including 

reports of opacity observations made 

using Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–4) to demonstrate 

compliance with § 60.672(b), (e) and (f). 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2ER28AP09.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 19315 

(g) The owner or operator of any wet 

material processing operation that 

processes saturated and subsequently 

processes unsaturated materials, shall 

submit a report of this change within 30 

days following such change. At the time 

of such change, this screening 

operation, bucket elevator, or belt 

conveyor becomes subject to the 

applicable opacity limit in § 60.672(b) 

and the emission test requirements of 

§ 60.11. 

(h) The subpart A requirement under 

§ 60.7(a)(1) for notification of the date 

construction or reconstruction 

commenced is waived for affected 

facilities under this subpart. 

(i) A notification of the actual date of 

initial startup of each affected facility 

shall be submitted to the Administrator. 

(1) For a combination of affected 

facilities in a production line that begin 

actual initial startup on the same day, a 

single notification of startup may be 

submitted by the owner or operator to 

the Administrator. The notification shall 

be postmarked within 15 days after such 

date and shall include a description of 

each affected facility, equipment 

manufacturer, and serial number of the 

equipment, if available. 

(2) For portable aggregate processing 

plants, the notification of the actual date 

of initial startup shall include both the 

home office and the current address or 

location of the portable plant. 

(j) The requirements of this section 

remain in force until and unless the 

Agency, in delegating enforcement 

authority to a State under section 111(c) 

of the Act, approves reporting 

requirements or an alternative means of 

compliance surveillance adopted by 

such States. In that event, affected 

facilities within the State will be 

relieved of the obligation to comply 

with the reporting requirements of this 

section, provided that they comply with 

requirements established by the State. 

(k) Notifications and reports required 

under this subpart and under subpart A 

of this part to demonstrate compliance 

with this subpart need only to be sent 

to the EPA Region or the State which 

has been delegated authority according 

to § 60.4(b). 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART OOO—EXCEPTIONS TO APPLICABILITY OF SUBPART A TO SUBPART OOO 

Subpart A reference Applies to 

subpart OOO Explanation 

60.4, Address ........................................... Yes ................... Except in § 60.4(a) and (b) submittals need not be submitted to both the EPA Region and delegated State authority (§ 60.676(k)). 

60.7, Notification and recordkeeping ....... Yes ................... Except in (a)(1) notification of the date construction or reconstruction commenced 

(§ 60.676(h)). 

Also, except in (a)(6) performance tests involving only Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–4) require a 7-day advance notification instead of 30 days 

(§ 60.675(g)). 

60.8, Performance tests ........................... Yes ................... Except in (d) performance tests involving only Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4) require a 7-day advance notification instead of 30 days (§ 60.675(g)). 

60.11, Compliance with standards and 

maintenance requirements.

Yes ................... Except in (b) under certain conditions (§§ 60.675(c)), Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

Appendix A–4) observation is reduced from 3 hours to 30 minutes for fugitive 

emissions. 

60.18, General control device .................. No ..................... Flares will not be used to comply with the emission limits. 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART OOO—STACK EMISSION LIMITS FOR AFFECTED FACILITIES WITH CAPTURE SYSTEMS

For * * * The owner or operator must meet 

a PM limit of * * * 

And the owner or operator must 

meet an opacity limit of * * * 

The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with these 

limits by conducting * * * 

Affected facilities (as defined in 

§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 31, 1983 but before April 

22, 2008.

0.05 g/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) a ....... 7 percent for dry control devices b An initial performance test according to § 60.8 of this part and 

§ 60.675 of this subpart; and 

Monitoring of wet scrubber parameters according to 

§ 60.674(a) and § 60.676(c), (d), 

and (e). 

Affected facilities (as defined in 

§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after 

April 22, 2008.

0.032 g/dscm (0.014 gr/dscf) a ..... Not applicable (except for individual enclosed storage bins).

7 percent for dry control devices 

on individual enclosed storage 

bins.

An initial performance test according to § 60.8 of this part and 

§ 60.675 of this subpart; and 

Monitoring of wet scrubber parameters according to 

§ 60.674(a) and § 60.676(c), (d), 

and (e); and 

Monitoring of baghouses according to § 60.674(c), (d), or (e) 

and § 60.676(b). 

aExceptions to the PM limit apply for individual enclosed storage bins and other equipment. See § 60.672(d) through (f). 

bThe stack opacity limit and associated opacity testing requirements do not apply for affected facilities using wet scrubbers. 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2
19316 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 28, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART OOO—FUGITIVE EMISSION LIMITS

For * * * 

The owner or operator must meet 

the following fugitive emissions 

limit for grinding mills, screening 

operations, bucket elevators, 

transfer points on belt conveyors, 

bagging operations, storage bins, 

enclosed truck or railcar loading 

stations or from any other affected facility (as defined in 

§§ 60.670 and 60.671) * * * 

The owner or operator must meet 

the following fugitive emissions 

limit for crushers at which a capture system is not used * * * 

The owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with these 

limits by conducting * * * 

Affected facilities (as defined in 

§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction after August 31, 1983 but before April 

22, 2008.

10 percent opacity ........................ 15 percent opacity ........................ An initial performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and 

§ 60.675 of this subpart. 

Affected facilities (as defined in 

§§ 60.670 and 60.671) that commence construction, modification, or reconstruction on or after 

April 22, 2008.

7 percent opacity .......................... 12 percent opacity ........................ An initial performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and 

§ 60.675 of this subpart; and 

Periodic inspections of water 

sprays according to § 60.674(b) 

and § 60.676(b); and 

A repeat performance test according to § 60.11 of this part and 

§ 60.675 of this subpart within 5 

years from the previous performance test for fugitive emissions from affected facilities 

without water sprays. Affected 

facilities controlled by water 

carryover from upstream water 

sprays that are inspected according to the requirements in 

§ 60.674(b) and § 60.676(b) are 

exempt from this 5-year repeat 

testing requirement. 

[FR Doc. E9–9435 Filed 4–27–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on PROD1PC64 with RULES2