51306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and Recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 5, 2005. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–17196 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0083; FRL–7962–2] 

RIN 2060–AM76 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated 

Iron and Steel Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel 

manufacturing. The proposed 

amendments would add a new 

compliance option, revise emission 

limitations, reduce the frequency of 

repeat performance tests for certain 

emissions units, add corrective action 

requirements, and clarify certain 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 31, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by September 19, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held approximately 30 

days following publication of this action 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0083, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0083 and mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741 and (919) 541–

5450. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(6102T), Attention Docket Number 

OAR–2002–0083, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket 

ID Number OAR–2002–0083, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

B–102, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person for the proposed action 

listed below see(FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0083. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. (For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket 

ID Number OAR–2002–0083, EPA West 

Building, Room B102, 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 EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Metals 

Group (C439–02), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–

5289, fax number (919) 541–5450, email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAIC 

code1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ........................................................ 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic 

oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops. 

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

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

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51307 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 63.7781 of subpart FFFFF 

(NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel 

Manufacturing). If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

either the air permit authority for the 

entity or your EPA regional 

representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 

of subpart A (General Provisions). 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s proposed 

action will also be available on the 

Worldwide Web through the 

Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 

Following signature, a copy of the 

proposed action will be posted on the 

TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

Public Hearing. If a public hearing is 

held, it will begin at 10 a.m. and will 

be held at EPA’s campus in Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an 

alternate facility nearby. Persons 

interested in presenting oral testimony 

or inquiring as to whether a public 

hearing is to be held should contact Ms. 

Barbara Miles, Metals Group (C439–02), 

Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 

telephone (919) 541–5648. 

Outline. The information presented in 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments 

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments 

A. Why are we proposing to revise the 

emission limitations? 

B. Why are we proposing to amend 

monitoring requirements for baghouses? 

C. Why are we proposing to revise the 

requirements for repeat performance 

tests? 

D. Why are we proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘ladle metallurgy’’ to 

exclude vacuum degassing? 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments 

V. 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 and 

Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

I. Background 

On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we 

issued the NESHAP for integrated iron 

and steel manufacturing facilities (40 

CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF). The 

NESHAP implement section 112(d) of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all 

major sources to meet emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(HAP) reflecting application of the 

maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT). The NESHAP 

establish emission limitations for 

emission sources in each new or 

existing sinter plant, blast furnace, and 

basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) 

shop. 

After promulgation of the NESHAP, 

five steel companies and one trade 

association filed a petition for review 

challenging the final standards (AK 

Steel Corporation et al. v. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, no. 

03–1207, DC Cir.). The petitioners 

raised issues concerning: 

• Failure to respond to substantive 

industry comments questioning the 

definitions, subcategorization, control 

technologies identified, emission 

standards, testing and monitoring, and 

other aspects of the rule; 

• Failure to provide justification for 

setting standards for ladle metallurgy 

operations, sinter plant discharge ends, 

and sinter coolers; 

• Requiring bag leak detection 

systems to be used for positive pressure 

baghouse systems that discharge 

without stacks or from baghouse 

systems with continuous emission 

monitors; 

• Applying emission standards to 

control devices that do not discharge to 

the ambient air; 

• Imposing stringent testing, 

monitoring, inspection, and reporting 

requirements on insignificant sources; 

• Providing for the establishment of 

source-specific opacity limitations 

based on opacity observations made 

during required source performance 

testing and by specifying use of 

infeasible technical requirements for 

such observations; and 

• Failing adequately to consider 

health threshold levels and to allow for 

alternative emission standards, 

performance testing requirements or 

monitoring methods that are 

demonstrated to provide comparable 

protection to public health and the 

environment. 

EPA and petitioners anticipate that 

the amendments to the NESHAP 

proposed in this notice will resolve 

these concerns, and EPA and industry 

petitioners have entered into a 

settlement agreement whereby EPA 

agreed to sign a notice proposing these 

amendments by September 23, 2005. 

See 70 FR 36383, June 23, 2005 (public 

notice of settlement agreement pursuant 

to section 113 of the CAA; EPA received 

no adverse comment on this notice of 

settlement). 

II. Summary of the Proposed 

Amendments 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the applicability of the emission 

limits for sinter cooler stacks at new and 

existing sinter plants. The revised limits 

would apply to each sinter cooler 

instead of to each sinter cooler stack. 

We are also proposing a 10 percent 

opacity limit for a sinter cooler at an 

existing sinter plant instead of the 

current particulate matter (PM) emission 

limit of 0.03 grains per dry standard 

cubic feet (gr/dscf). The proposed 

amendments would also clarify (in a 

new footnote to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 

63, subpart FFFFF) that PM limits do 

not apply to discharges inside a 

building or structure housing a 

discharge end at an existing sinter plant, 

inside a casthouse at an existing blast 

furnace, or inside an existing BOPF 

shop that is subject to a roof monitor 

opacity limit. We are proposing to 

change the frequency for conducting 

subsequent performance tests from 

twice each permit term to once each 

permit term for emission units equipped 

with a baghouse. Repeat performance 

tests would still be required at least 

twice each permit term for a sinter 

cooler at an existing sinter plant, for 

each unit equipped with a control 

device other than a baghouse, and for 

each affected source without a title V 

operating permit. 

The proposed amendments would 

revise the operating limit in 40 CFR 

63.7790(b)(3) for an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) that controls 

emissions from a BOPF to require that 

the hourly average opacity of emissions 

from the control device be maintained at 

or below 10 percent. 

Section 63.7830(b) of the NESHAP 

requires a bag leak detection system for 

each baghouse used to meet a PM limit. 

The proposed amendments would add 

an alternative allowing plants to use a 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) to monitor the opacity of 

emissions exiting each control device 

stack. A bag leak detection system or 

51308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

COMS would not be required for a 

positive-pressure baghouse not 

equipped with exhaust gas stacks that 

was installed before August 30, 2005. 

We are proposing to revise the 

requirements for operation and 

maintenance (O&M) plans. The 

proposed amendments would expand 

the corrective action procedures in 40 

CFR 63.7800(b)(4) to apply to baghouses 

equipped with COMS in addition to 

those with bag leak detection systems. 

Plants would be required to initiate 

corrective action if a bag leak detection 

system alarm is triggered or if emissions 

from a baghouse equipped with a COMS 

exceed an hourly average opacity of 5 

percent. 

We are also proposing to add 

corrective action procedures for other 

types of control devices. If a venturi 

scrubber equipped with continuous 

parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) 

or an ESP equipped with a COMS 

exceeds the opacity operating limit, 

plants would be required to take 

corrective action consistent with their 

site-specific monitoring plan. New 

provisions in 40 CFR 63.7833 would 

require plants to initiate corrective 

action to determine the cause of the 

exceedance within 1 hour and to 

measure operating parameter value(s) 

for the emission unit within 24 hours of 

the exceedance. If the measured value(s) 

meet the applicable operating limit, the 

corrective action is successful and the 

emission unit would be in compliance 

with the applicable operating limit. If 

the initial corrective action is not 

successful, additional corrective action 

would be required within the next 24 

hours. Plants would re-measure the 

operating parameter(s) and if the 

corrective action is successful, the 

emission unit would be in compliance 

with the applicable operating limit. If 

the second attempt at corrective action 

is not successful, the plant would report 

the exceedance as a deviation in the 

next semiannual compliance report. 

In other amendments, we are 

proposing to clarify the requirements for 

establishing venturi scrubber parametric 

operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7824(b) by 

stating that plants may establish the 

limit during the initial performance test 

or during any other performance test 

that meets the emission limit. We are 

also proposing to revise the definition of 

‘‘ladle metallurgy’’ by stating that 

vacuum degassing is not included in the 

definition. We are also proposing 

changes to Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart FFFFF, which would clarify the 

applicability of certain monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in the NESHAP General 

Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) 

to the rule and correct errors in certain 

entries. 

III. Rationale for the Proposed 

Amendments 

A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the 

Emission Limitations? 

Sinter Coolers 

The petitioners objected to the PM 

emission limit for sinter cooler stacks 

(0.03 gr/dscf) for a variety of reasons, 

including the lack of HAP data to 

support a standard, the de minimus 

nature of the emissions, and the high 

costs for testing and monitoring. In 

addition, several plants have coolers 

without stacks that cannot be tested by 

EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A). Petitioners contend that an 

opacity limit would be technically 

feasible and consistent with State rules. 

We agree with the commenters’

concerns that the sinter cooler standard 

should accommodate coolers without 

stacks. For a sinter cooler at a new 

affected source, we are proposing to 

revise the current limit to apply to 

emissions from each sinter cooler rather 

than each sinter cooler stack. For sinter 

coolers at an existing affected source, 

we are proposing to revise the MACT 

floor based on State rules and new 

opacity data. As discussed below, the 

data clearly show that a 10 percent limit 

(6-minute average) provides a 

reasonably accurate picture of the 

performance achieved by the bestperforming sources and can be achieved 

on a continuing basis. 

Our review of sinter coolers indicate 

that some coolers do not have stacks, 

and their design and operation make it 

impractical to install a stack. As 

promulgated, the final rule does not 

apply an emission limit to coolers 

without stacks. We reviewed existing 

State regulations for sinter coolers and 

found that some States have opacity 

limits which provide a practical means 

for limiting emissions from coolers with 

and without stacks. The MACT floor 

based on current opacity limits is 

determined by the 10 percent (6-minute 

average) limit that applies to three sinter 

plants with five sinter coolers in Lake 

County, Indiana. See Indiana 

Administrative Code (IAC), 326 IAC 6–

1–11.1(d)(7)(A)–(B). We attempted to 

obtain opacity data for these sources, 

but the coolers are seldom inspected by 

the State agency because they are such 

a low-emitting emission source. We also 

attempted to obtain self-monitoring data 

performed by the plants. Data were 

available for only one of the sinter plant 

coolers. The plant provided data for 366 

observations covering 13 months. The 

99th percentile of the observations was 

8 percent opacity, and only two 

observations exceeded 10 percent. 

These data indicate that a MACT floor 

of 10 percent opacity based on current 

State regulations is a reasonable 

representation of the opacity that can be 

achieved on a continuing basis by sinter 

coolers. The proposed opacity limit 

would apply to the sinter cooler and any 

discharge of emissions from the cooler; 

it would not apply to the material 

transfer point where the sinter is 

removed from the cooler. 

Discharges Inside Buildings 

The petitioners explained that at some 

facilities, control devices discharge to 

the interior of buildings and not to the 

ambient air. Other facilities are able to 

meet opacity limits by using flame 

suppression and do not have a control 

device. Facilities with capture systems 

leading to a control device that then 

discharge within the building are in 

effect no different than those systems 

used to suppress emissions to meet the 

opacity limit for a building. 

The petitioners are correct that the 

language of the emission limits in Table 

1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF 

(‘‘emissions discharged to the 

atmosphere’’), could be construed to 

include emissions discharged inside 

buildings. This is not our intent. In 

response to the petitioners’ concerns, 

we are proposing amendments to Table 

1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that 

would add a footnote to each PM limit 

for a control device at an existing source 

stating that the limit does not apply to 

discharges inside a blast furnace 

casthouse, BOPF shop, or building 

housing the discharge end at a sinter 

plant. The applicable emission limit for 

these emissions and other fugitive 

emissions that are discharged through 

the roof monitor is the opacity limit for 

the building cited in Table 1 to 40 CFR 

part 63, subpart FFFFF. 

Parametric Operating Limit for 

Electrostatic Precipitators 

The NESHAP establish an operating 

limit for ESP that control emissions 

from a BOPF. Plant operators are to set 

the site-specific limit based on COMS 

measurements made during the 

performance test. The commenters 

contend that variations in BOPF 

operations make it impractical to set a 

parametric limit based on a short-term 

performance test. In addition, the 

presence of water vapor or steam, which 

is necessary for optimizing ESP 

performance, raises issues of 

interferences in COM readings. The 

commenters support a 20 percent 

opacity limit (6-minute average), 

consistent with State regulations, permit 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51309 

requirements, and the NESHAP for 

Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters 

(69 FR 55218, September 13, 2004). The 

petitioners also stated that exceedance 

of the parametric limit should result in 

triggering corrective action rather than a 

violation. 

We agree with the petitioners’

arguments and are proposing to change 

the ESP operating limit to a fixed 

opacity level of 10 percent. This 

proposed operating limit would be an 

hourly average to be consistent with 

other parametric operating limits for 

control devices. We are also proposing 

that plant operators take corrective 

action if the operating limit for an ESP 

or venturi scrubber is exceeded. The 

proposed amendments would require 

plant operators to initiate corrective 

action within 1 hour. If the limit is still 

exceeded after 24 hours (i.e., the 

corrective action was unsuccessful), 

plant operators would need to take 

additional corrective action. If the 

operating limit is exceeded after 24 

more hours, we are proposing that the 

exceedance would be reported as a 

deviation in the semiannual compliance 

report. These provisions would not 

apply in the event of a malfunction, 

which would be handled according to 

the startup, shutdown, and malfunction 

plan. 

B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend 

Monitoring Requirements for 

Baghouses? 

Baghouses Without Exhaust Stacks 

The NESHAP require a bag leak 

detection system for each baghouse used 

to meet the PM limits. The petitioners 

point out that EPA’s ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag 

Leak Detection Guidance’’ (EPA–454/R–

98–015, September 1997) states that 

only fabric filters with exhaust stacks 

are covered by this guidance. Some of 

the emissions sources covered by the 

NESHAP use positive pressure 

baghouses which do not use an exhaust 

stack. EPA has recognized this problem 

in other rules. 

We agree with the commenters that 

bag leak detection systems should not 

be required for fabric filters without 

exhaust stacks. In response to the 

commenters’ concerns, we are 

proposing to revise the rule to clarify 

that bag leak detection systems are 

required only for negative pressure 

baghouses and positive pressure 

baghouses with a stack. 

COMS as an Alternative to Bag Leak 

Detection Systems 

The petitioners also point out that 

some companies already have COMS in 

place, may be required to install COMS 

due to State, local, or permit 

requirements, or may opt for COMS 

instead of bag leak detection systems if 

given the choice. These companies 

should not be required to operate 

duplicative baghouse monitoring 

systems. 

We agree that COMS, which provide 

a direct measure of opacity, are certainly 

a suitable alternative to bag leak 

detection systems. In response to the 

petitioners’ concerns, we are proposing 

to increase the flexibility of the 

NESHAP by adding COMS as a 

monitoring alternative. This approach is 

consistent with several other MACT 

standards, as well as the recent 

amendments to the new source 

performance standards (NSPS) for 

electric arc furnaces (70 FR 8523, 

February 22, 2005). The proposed 

amendments would require that the 

COMS for baghouses meet the same 

requirements as COMS for ESP. The 

same corrective action requirements for 

baghouses also would apply. If a bag 

leak detection system alarm is triggered 

or emissions from a baghouse equipped 

with a COMS exceed an hourly average 

opacity of 5 percent, the proposed 

amendments would require plants to 

initiate corrective action within 

specified time limits. We are proposing 

the 5 percent trigger because it is 

consistent with other MACT standards 

as well as with the amendments to the 

NSPS for electric arc furnaces cited 

above. 

C. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the 

Requirements for Repeat Performance 

Tests? 

The petitioners asked EPA to amend 

the rule to reduce the costs associated 

with demonstrating continuous 

compliance, particularly for wellcontrolled emissions sources. We are 

proposing to reduce the frequency of 

repeat PM and opacity performance 

tests from twice each permit term to 

once per term for emission units 

equipped with a baghouse. The reduced 

frequency would apply to minor 

emission units equipped with 

baghouses because performance would 

be continuously monitored by a bag leak 

detection system or COMS. 

D. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the 

Definition of ‘‘Ladle Metallurgy’’ To 

Exclude Vacuum Degassing? 

Vacuum degassing is an advanced 

steel refining process to remove oxygen, 

hydrogen, and nitrogen in a vacuum to 

produce ultra-low carbon steel for 

certain applications. As such, this 

process could fall within the definition 

of ‘‘ladle metallurgy.’’ The petitioners 

argue that EPA did not acknowledge the 

fundamental control technology 

differences for vacuum degassing 

operations compared to ladle metallurgy 

operations which are typically 

controlled by baghouses. They explain 

that many BOPF shops have vacuum 

degassing facilities and all use steam 

ejector/condenser systems; baghouses 

are not suitable control systems because 

of the inherent moisture in the gas 

downstream of the steam ejectors. 

Although PM emissions are low, these 

facilities would not be able to achieve 

the limit for new or existing ladle 

metallurgy operations. 

We agree with the petitioners that the 

definition of ‘‘ladle metallurgy’’ (a 

secondary steelmaking process that is 

performed in a ladle after initial refining 

in a BOPF to adjust the chemical and/ 

or mechanical properties of steel) could 

be interpreted to include vacuum 

degassing. In response to the petitioners’

concerns, we are proposing to revise the 

definition of ‘‘ladle metallurgy’’ to 

specifically exclude vacuum degassing. 

IV. Impacts of the Proposed 

Amendments 

The proposed amendments would not 

affect the level of emissions control 

required by the existing NESHAP or the 

nonair, health, environmental, and 

energy impacts. However, the costs of 

implementing the existing rule would 

be reduced in future years. For example, 

the proposed reduction in subsequent 

performance tests for an emissions 

source equipped with a baghouse would 

reduce the nationwide cost of PM 

testing over the next 5 years from 

$270,000/year to $180,000/year, a 

savings of $90,000/year. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must 

determine whether the regulatory action 

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

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of 

the Executive Order. The Executive 

Order defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as one that is likely to result in 

a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; 

51310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

It has been determined that these 

proposed amendments are not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 and 

are, therefore, not subject to OMB 

review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden. The 

proposed amendments provide 

additional flexibility through revised 

requirements for monitoring operational 

parameters which would not increase 

the existing information collection 

burden. Other proposed amendments, 

such as the reduction in subsequent PM 

performance tests for certain emissions 

sources, is expected to decrease the 

information collection burden in future 

years. However, OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements contained in the existing 

regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart 

FFFFF) under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0517, EPA 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

number 2003.02. A copy of the OMB 

approved ICR may be obtained from 

Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of 

Environmental Information, Collection 

Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 

Auby.Susan@epa.gov, or by calling 

(202) 566–1672. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

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 would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

For the purposes of assessing the 

impacts of today’s proposed 

amendments on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district, or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed 

amendments on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The proposed amendments would not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. There are no small entities in 

the regulated industry. We continue to 

be interested in the potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any 1 year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of the UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that the 

proposed amendments do 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 to the private sector 

in any 1 year. Thus, today’s proposed 

amendments are not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of 

the UMRA. In addition, EPA has 

determined that the proposed 

amendments contain no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, 

because they contain no requirements 

that apply to such governments or 

impose obligations upon them. 

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’’ are 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.’’

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51311 

The proposed amendments do not 

have federalism implications. They 

would 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 plants are owned 

or operated by State governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to the proposed amendments. In the 

spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ The proposed 

amendments do not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. They would not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

No tribal governments own plants 

subject to the MACT standards for 

integrated iron and steel manufacturing. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to today’s proposed amendments. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health & 

Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant,’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

EPA must evaluate the environmental 

health or safety effects of the planned 

rule on children, and explain why the 

planned regulation is preferable to other 

potentially effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by EPA. 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

as applying only to those regulatory 

actions that are based on health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. The proposed amendments 

are not subject to the Executive Order 

because they are based on control 

technology and not on health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The proposed amendments are not 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001) because they are 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Under section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 

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. The VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted VCS bodies. 

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency does not use available 

and applicable VCS. 

The proposed amendments do not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 23, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 63—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 63 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart FFFFF—[AMENDED] 

2. Section 63.7790 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7790 What emission limitations must I 

meet? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) For each electrostatic precipitator 

applied to emissions from a BOPF, you 

must maintain the hourly average 

opacity of emissions exiting the control 

device at or below 10 percent. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 63.7800 is amended by: 

a. Revising the second sentence in the 

introductory text of paragraph (b); 

b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (b)(4); 

c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi); 

d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as 

(b)(7); and 

e. Adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and 

(b)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7800 What are my operation and 

maintenance requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * Each plan must address the 

elements in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(7) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) Corrective action procedures for 

baghouses equipped with bag leak 

detection systems or continuous opacity 

monitoring systems (COMS). In the 

event a bag leak detection system alarm 

is triggered or emissions from a 

baghouse equipped with a COMS 

exceed an hourly average opacity of 5 

percent, you must initiate corrective 

action to determine the cause of the 

alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, 

initiate corrective action to correct the 

cause of the problem within 24 hours of 

the alarm, and complete the corrective 

action as soon as practicable. Corrective 

actions may include, but are not limited 

to: 

* * * * * 

(vi) Shutting down the process 

producing the particulate emissions. 

(5) Corrective action procedures for 

venturi scrubbers equipped with 

continuous parameter monitoring 

systems (CPMS). In the event a venturi 

scrubber exceeds the operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you must take corrective 

actions consistent with your sitespecific monitoring plan in accordance 

with § 63.7831(a). 

(6) Corrective action procedures for 

electrostatic precipitators equipped with 

COMS. In the event an electrostatic 

precipitator exceeds the operating limit 

in § 63.7790(b)(3), you must take 

corrective actions consistent with your 

site-specific monitoring plan in 

accordance with § 63.7831(a). 

* * * * * 

4. Section 63.7821 is revised to read 

as follows: 

51312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(a) You must conduct subsequent 

performance tests to demonstrate 

compliance with all applicable PM and 

opacity limits in Table 1 to this subpart 

at the frequencies specified in 

paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 

section. 

(b) For each sinter cooler at an 

existing sinter plant and each emissions 

unit equipped with a control device 

other than a baghouse, you must 

conduct subsequent performance tests 

no less frequently than twice (at midterm and renewal) during each term of 

your title V operating permit. 

(c) For each emissions unit equipped 

with a baghouse, you must conduct 

subsequent performance tests no less 

frequently than once during each term 

of your title V operating permit. 

(d) For sources without a title V 

operating permit, you must conduct 

subsequent performance tests every 2.5 

years. 

5. Section 63.7823 is amended by 

revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7823 What test methods and other 

procedures must I use to demonstrate 

initial compliance with the opacity limits? 

* * * * * 

(c) To determine compliance with the 

applicable opacity limit in Table 1 to 

this subpart for a sinter cooler at an 

existing sinter plant, a sinter plant 

discharge end, or a blast furnace 

casthouse: 

* * * * * 

6. Section 63.7824 is amended by: 

a. Adding a second sentence to the 

introductory text of paragraph (b); 

b. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

c. Removing paragraph (c); 

d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) 

through (g) as paragraphs (c) through (f); 

e. Revising the introductory text of 

newly designated paragraph (c) and 

newly designated paragraph (c)(3); 

f. Revising the introductory text of 

newly designated paragraph (d); and 

g. Revising the introductory text of 

newly designated paragraph (e) and 

newly designated paragraph (e)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 63.7824 What test methods and other 

procedures must I use to establish and 

demonstrate initial compliance with 

operating limits? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * You may establish the 

parametric monitoring limit during the 

initial performance test or during any 

other performance test run that meets 

the emission limit. 

(1) Using the CPMS required in 

§ 63.7830(c), measure and record the 

pressure drop and scrubber water flow 

rate during each run of the particulate 

matter performance test. 

* * * * * 

(c) You may change the operating 

limits for a capture system or venturi 

scrubber if you meet the requirements in 

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

section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Establish revised operating limits 

according to the applicable procedures 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

for a control device or capture system. 

(d) For each sinter plant subject to the 

operating limit for the oil content of the 

sinter plant feedstock in § 63.7790(d)(1), 

you must demonstrate initial 

compliance according to the procedures 

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

section. 

* * * * * 

(e) To demonstrate initial compliance 

with the alternative operating limit for 

volatile organic compound emissions 

from the sinter plant windbox exhaust 

stream in § 63.7790(d)(2), follow the test 

methods and procedures in paragraphs 

(e)(1) through (5) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(4) Continue the sampling and 

analysis procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section for 30 

consecutive days. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 63.7825 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and 

(a)(3); 

b. Removing paragraph (a)(4); and 

c. Revising paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the emission limitations 

that apply to me? 

(a) * * * 

(2) For each capture system subject to 

the operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(1), 

you have established appropriate sitespecific operating limit(s) and have a 

record of the operating parameter data 

measured during the performance test in 

accordance with § 63.7824(a)(1); and 

(3) For each venturi scrubber subject 

to the operating limits for pressure drop 

and scrubber water flow rate in 

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you have established 

appropriate site-specific operating limits 

and have a record of the pressure drop 

and scrubber water flow rate measured 

during the performance test in 

accordance with § 63.7824(b). 

(b) For each existing or new sinter 

plant subject to the operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(d)(1), you have demonstrated 

initial compliance if the 30-day rolling 

average of the oil content of the 

feedstock, measured during the initial 

performance test in accordance with 

§ 63.7824(d) is no more than 0.02 

percent. For each existing or new sinter 

plant subject to the alternative operating 

limit in § 63.7790(d)(2), you have 

demonstrated initial compliance if the 

30-day rolling average of the volatile 

organic compound emissions from the 

sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, 

measured during the initial performance 

test in accordance with § 63.7824(e) is 

no more than 0.2 lb/ton of sinter 

produced. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 63.7826 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial 

compliance with the operation and 

maintenance requirements that apply to 

me? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Prepared the control device 

operation and maintenance plan 

according to the requirements of 

§ 63.7800(b), including a preventative 

maintenance schedule and, as 

applicable, detailed descriptions of the 

corrective action procedures for 

baghouses and other control devices; 

* * * * * 

9. Section 63.7830 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e)(1), and 

(e)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7830 What are my monitoring 

requirements? 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section, you must meet the 

requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) 

of this section for each baghouse 

applied to meet any particulate 

emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart. 

You must conduct inspections of each 

baghouse according to the requirements 

in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 

(1) Install, operate, and maintain a bag 

leak detection system according to 

§ 63.7831(f) and monitor the relative 

change in particulate matter loadings 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7832; or 

(2) If you do not install and operate 

a bag leak detection system, you must 

install, operate, and maintain a COMS 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly 

average opacity of emissions exiting 

each control device stack according to 

the requirements in § 63.7832. 

(3) A bag leak detection system and 

COMS are not required for a baghouse 

that meets the requirements in 

paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51313 

(i) The baghouse is a positive pressure 

baghouse and is not equipped with 

exhaust gas stacks; and 

(ii) The baghouse was installed before 

August 30, 2005. 

(4) You must conduct inspections of 

each baghouse at the specified 

frequencies according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) 

through (viii) of this section. 

(i) Monitor the pressure drop across 

each baghouse cell each day to ensure 

pressure drop is within the normal 

operating range identified in the 

manual. 

(ii) Confirm that dust is being 

removed from hoppers through weekly 

visual inspections or other means of 

ensuring the proper functioning of 

removal mechanisms. 

(iii) Check the compressed air supply 

for pulse-jet baghouses each day. 

(iv) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure 

proper operation using an appropriate 

methodology. 

(v) Check bag cleaning mechanisms 

for proper functioning through monthly 

visual inspection or equivalent means. 

(vi) Make monthly visual checks of 

bag tension on reverse air and shakertype baghouses to ensure that bags are 

not kinked (kneed or bent) or laying on 

their sides. You do not have to make 

this check for shaker-type baghouses 

using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) 

devices. 

(vii) Confirm the physical integrity of 

the baghouse through quarterly visual 

inspections of the baghouse interior for 

air leaks. 

(viii) Inspect fans for wear, material 

buildup, and corrosion through 

quarterly visual inspections, vibration 

detectors, or equivalent means. 

* * * * * 

(d) For each electrostatic precipitator 

subject to the opacity operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(b)(3), you must install, 

operate, and maintain a COMS 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly 

average opacity of emissions exiting 

each control device stack according to 

the requirements in § 63.7832. 

(e) * * * 

(1) Compute and record the 30-day 

rolling average of the oil content of the 

feedstock for each operating day using 

the procedures in § 63.7824(d); or 

(2) Compute and record the 30-day 

rolling average of the volatile organic 

compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) 

for each operating day using the 

procedures in § 63.7824(e). 

10. Section 63.7831 is amended by: 

a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (a)(5) 

and (a)(6), and adding new paragraphs 

(a)(7) and (a)(8); 

b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (f); and 

c. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (h) and revising paragraph 

(h)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7831 What are the installation, 

operation, and maintenance requirements 

for my monitors? 

(a) For each CPMS required in 

§ 63.7830, you must develop and make 

available for inspection upon request by 

the permitting authority a site-specific 

monitoring plan that addresses the 

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (8) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(5) Ongoing data quality assurance 

procedures in accordance with the 

general requirements of § 63.8(d); 

(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and 

reporting procedures in accordance with 

the general requirements of § 63.10(c), 

paragraph (e)(1), and paragraph (e)(2)(i); 

(7) Corrective action procedures you 

will follow in the event a venturi 

scrubber exceeds the operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(b)(2); and 

(8) Corrective action procedures you 

will follow in the event an electrostatic 

precipitator exceeds the operating limit 

in § 63.7790(b)(3). 

* * * * * 

(f) For each baghouse equipped with 

a bag leak detection system according to 

§ 63.7830(b)(1), you must install, 

operate, and maintain the bag leak 

detection system according to the 

requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (7) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(h) For each electrostatic precipitator 

subject to the opacity operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(b)(3) and each baghouse 

equipped with a COMS according to 

§ 63.7830(b)(2), you must install, 

operate, and maintain each COMS 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(4) COMS data must be reduced to 6- 

minute averages as specified in 

§ 63.8(g)(2) and to hourly averages 

where required by this subpart FFFFF. 

11. Section 63.7833 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c); 

b. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (d) and adding new 

paragraph (d)(4); 

c. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (e), revising paragraph (e)(1), 

and adding new paragraph (e)(3); 

d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and 

(f)(2)(i); and 

e. Adding new paragraph (g) to read 

as follows: 

§ 63.7833 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the emission 

limitations that apply to me? 

* * * * * 

(c) For each baghouse applied to meet 

any particulate emission limit in Table 

1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by meeting the 

requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) 

as applicable, and paragraphs (c)(3) and 

(4) of this section: 

(1) For a baghouse equipped with a 

bag leak detection system, operating and 

maintaining each bag leak detection 

system according to § 63.7831(f) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements. If you increase or 

decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak 

detection system beyond the limits 

specified in § 63.7831(f)(6), you must 

include a copy of the required written 

certification by a responsible official in 

the next semiannual compliance report. 

(2) For a baghouse equipped with a 

COMS, operating and maintaining each 

COMS and reducing the COMS data 

according to § 63.7831(h). 

(3) Inspecting each baghouse 

according to the requirements in 

§ 63.7830(b)(4) and maintaining all 

records needed to document 

conformance with these requirements. 

(4) Maintaining records of the time 

you initiated corrective action in the 

event of a bag leak detection system 

alarm or when the hourly average 

opacity exceeded 5 percent, the 

corrective action(s) taken, and the date 

on which corrective action was 

completed. 

(d) For each venturi scrubber subject 

to the operating limits for pressure drop 

and scrubber water flow rate in 

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) 

through (4) of this section: 

* * * * * 

(4) If the hourly average pressure drop 

or scrubber water flow rate is below the 

operating limits, you must follow the 

corrective action procedures in 

paragraph (g) of this section. 

(e) For each electrostatic precipitator 

subject to the opacity operating limit in 

§ 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate 

continuous compliance by meeting the 

requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section: 

(1) Maintaining the hourly average 

opacity of emissions no higher than 10 

percent; and 

* * * * * 

(3) If the hourly average opacity of 

emissions exceeds 10 percent, you must 

follow the corrective action procedures 

in paragraph (g) of this section. 

51314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Computing and recording the 30- 

day rolling average of the percent oil 

content for each operating day 

according to the performance test 

procedures in § 63.7824(d); 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Computing and recording the 30- 

day rolling average of the volatile 

organic compound emissions for each 

operating day according to the 

performance test procedures in 

§ 63.7824(e); 

* * * * * 

(g) If the hourly average pressure drop 

or water flow rate for a venturi scrubber 

or hourly average opacity for an 

electrostatic precipitator exceeds the 

operating limit, you must follow the 

procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through 

(4) of this section. 

(1) You must initiate corrective action 

to determine the cause of the 

exceedance within 1 hour. During any 

period of corrective action, you must 

continue to monitor and record all 

required operating parameters for 

equipment that remains in operation. 

Within 24 hours of the exceedance, you 

must measure and record the hourly 

average operating parameter value for 

the emission unit on which corrective 

action was taken. If the hourly average 

parameter value meets the applicable 

operating limit, then the corrective 

action was successful, and the emission 

unit is in compliance with the 

applicable operating limit. 

(2) If the initial corrective action 

required in paragraph (g)(1) of this 

section was not successful, you must 

complete additional corrective action 

within the next 24 hours (48 hours from 

the time of the exceedance). During any 

period of corrective action, you must 

continue to monitor and record all 

required operating parameters for 

equipment that remains in operation. 

After this second 24 hour period, you 

must again measure and record the 

hourly average operating parameter 

value for the emission unit on which 

corrective action was taken. If the 

hourly average parameter value meets 

the applicable operating limit, then the 

corrective action was successful, and 

the emission unit is in compliance with 

the applicable operating limit. 

(3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) 

and (2) of this section, in the case of an 

exceedance of the hourly average 

opacity operating limit for an 

electrostatic precipitator, measurements 

of the hourly average opacity based on 

visible emission observations in 

accordance with Method 9 (40 CFR part 

60, appendix A) may be taken to 

evaluate the effectiveness of corrective 

action. 

(4) If the second attempt at corrective 

action required in paragraph (g)(2) of 

this section was not successful, you 

must report the exceedance as a 

deviation in your next semiannual 

compliance report according to 

§ 63.7841(b). 

12. Section 63.7834 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7834 How do I demonstrate 

continuous compliance with the operation 

and maintenance requirements that apply to 

me? 

(a) For each capture system and 

control device subject to an operating 

limit in § 63.7790(b), you must 

demonstrate continuous compliance 

with the operation and maintenance 

requirements in § 63.7800(b) by meeting 

the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section: 

(1) Making monthly inspections of 

capture systems and initiating corrective 

action according to § 63.7800(b)(1) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements; 

(2) Performing preventative 

maintenance according to 

§ 63.7800(b)(2) and recording all 

information needed to document 

conformance with these requirements; 

(3) Initiating and completing 

corrective action for a baghouse 

equipped with a bag leak detection 

system or COMS according to 

§ 63.7800(b)(4) and recording all 

information needed to document 

conformance with these requirements, 

including the time you initiated 

corrective action, the corrective 

action(s) taken, and the date on which 

corrective action was completed. 

(4) Initiating and completing 

corrective action for a venturi scrubber 

equipped with a CPMS or an 

electrostatic precipitator equipped with 

a COMS according to § 63.7833(g) and 

recording all information needed to 

document conformance with these 

requirements, including the time you 

initiated corrective action, the corrective 

action(s) taken within the first 24 hours 

according to § 63.7833(g)(1) and 

whether they were successful, the 

corrective action(s) taken within the 

second 24 hours according to 

§ 63.7833(g)(2) and whether they were 

successful, and the date on which 

corrective action was completed. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 63.7835 is amended by 

revising the first sentence in paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 63.7835 What other requirements must I 

meet to demonstrate continuous 

compliance? 

(a) Deviations. Except as provided in 

§ 63.7833(g), you must report each 

instance in which you did not meet 

each emission limitation in § 63.7790 

that applies to you. * * * 

* * * * * 

14. Section 63.7851 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 63.7851 Who implements and enforces 

this subpart? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Approval of major alternatives to 

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and 

paragraph (f) and as defined in § 63.90, 

except for approval of an alternative 

method for the oil content of the sinter 

plant feedstock or volatile organic 

compound measurements for the sinter 

plant windbox exhaust stream stack as 

provided in § 63.7824(f). 

* * * * * 

15. Section 63.7852 is amended by 

revising the definition of term ‘‘Ladle 

metallurgy’’ to read as follows: 

§ 63.7852 What definitions apply to this 

subpart? 

* * * * * 

Ladle metallurgy means a secondary 

steelmaking process that is performed 

typically in a ladle after initial refining 

in a basic oxygen process furnace to 

adjust or amend the chemical and/or 

mechanical properties of steel. This 

definition does not include vacuum 

degassing. 

* * * * * 

16. Table 1 to subpart FFFFF of part 

63 is amended by revising entries 3, 5, 

6, 7, 9, 10, and 11; and by revising the 

footnotes to read as follows: 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51315 

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS

* * * * * * * 

For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . . 

* * * * * * * 

3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant.a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or more 

control devices that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/ 

dscf 1 2 and 

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any 

opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 20 

percent (6-minute average). 

* * * * * * * 

5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter 

plant.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions that exhibit opacity greater 

than 10 percent (6-minute plant. average). 

6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plan You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in 

excess of 0.01 gr/dscf. 

7. Each casthouse at an existing blast 

furnace.

a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device 

that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf 2; and 

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit any 

opening in the casthouse or structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity greater than 20 

percent (6-minute average). 

* * * * * * * 

9. Each BOPF at a or existing shop ....... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at a new or existing BOPF shop that 

contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf during the primary 

oxygen blow 2 3; and 

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with an open hood system that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, 

particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle for an existing BOPF 

shop 2 3 or 0.01 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle for a new BOPF shop 3; and 

c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device 

used solely for the collection of secondary emissions from the BOPF that contain particulate matter 

in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop. 

10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, 

and desulfurization operation at a new 

or existing BOPF shop.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device 

that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop 2 or 0.003 gr/ 

dscf for a new BOPF shop. 

11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a 

new or existing BOPF shop.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device 

that contain particulate matter in excess of BOPF shop 2 or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop. 

* * * * * * * 

1This limit applies if the cooler is vented to the same control device as the discharge end. 

2This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the discharge end at 

an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop that is subject to a roof monitor opacity 

limit in Table 1 to this subpart. 3This limit applies to control devices operated in parallel for a single BOPF during the oxygen blow. 

17. Table 2 to subpart FFFFF of part 

63 is amended by revising entries 5 and 

6 as follows: 

TABLE 2 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—INITIAL COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS

* * * * * * * 

For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . . 

* * * * * * * 

5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter 

plant.

The opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), 

did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average). 

6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter 

plant.

The average concentration of particulate matter, measured according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf. 

* * * * * * * 

18. Table 3 to subpart FFFFF of part 

63 is revised to read as follows: 

51316 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—CONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE WITH EMISSION AND OPACITY LIMITS

As required in § 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table. 

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . . 

1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an 

existing sinter plant 

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.4 lb/ton of product sinter; and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

2. Each windbox exhaust stream at a 

new sinter plant 

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter; and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant.a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below 0.02 gr/ 

dscf; and 

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure 

housing the discharge end at or below 20 percent (6-minute average); and 

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

4. Each discharge end at a new sinter 

plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below 0.01 gr/ 

dscf; and 

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure 

housing the discharge end at or below 10 percent (6-minute average); and 

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter 

plant.

a. Maintaining the opacity of emissions that exit any sinter cooler at or below 10 percent (6-minute 

average); and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter 

plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.1 gr/dscf; and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

7. Each casthouse at an existing blast 

furnace.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf; and 

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or structure 

housing the casthouse at or below 20 percent (6-minute average); and 

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

8. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace.a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.003 gr/dscf; and 

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or structure 

housing the casthouse at or below 15 percent (6-minute average); and 

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

9. Each BOPF at a new or existing 

BOPF shop.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control system for a BOPF with a 

closed hood system at or below 0.03 gr/dscf; and 

b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary control system for a BOPF with an 

open hood system at or below 0.02 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.01 gr/dscf for a new 

BOPF shop; and 

c. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF at or below 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a new 

BOPF shop; and 

d. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

10. Each hot metal transfer, skimming, 

and desulfurization operation at a new 

or existing BOPF shop 

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF or 0.003 gr/dscf for a new BOPF; and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a 

new or existing BOPF shop 

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.01 gr/dscf at an existing BOPF shop or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop; and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

12. Each roof monitor at an existing 

BOPF shop.

a. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or other 

building housing the BOPF shop or shop operation at or below 20 percent (3-minute average); and 

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

13. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF 

shop.

a. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit any 

opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or shop operation at or 

below 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period greater than 10 percent but no more than 20 

percent may occur once per steel production cycle; and 

b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit any 

opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or 

below 10 percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle; and 

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at the frequencies specified in § 63.7821. 

19. Table 4 to subpart FFFFF of part 

63 is amended by revising entry 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) and entries §§ 63.8 

through 63.10 as follows: 

* * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51317 

TABLE 4 TO SUBPART FFFFF OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART FFFFF 

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart 

FFFFF Explanation 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) Determining Compliance with Opacity 

and VE Standards.

No ......................... Subpart FFFFF specifies methods and 

procedures for determining compliance with opacity emission and operating limits. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3), (b), (c)(1)–(3), (c)(4)(i)–

(ii), (c)(5)–(6), (c)(7)–(8), (f)(1)–(5), 

(g)(1)–(4).

Monitoring Requirements ..................... Yes ........................ CMS requirements in §§ 63.8(c)(4)(i)–

(ii), (c)(5)–(6), (d), and (e) apply only 

to COMS. 

§ 63.8(a)(4) .............................................. Additional Monitoring Requirements for 

Control Devices in § 63.11.

No ......................... Subpart FFFFF does not require 

flares. 

§ 63.8(c)(4) .............................................. Continuous Monitoring System Requirements.No ......................... Subpart FFFFF specifies requirements 

for operation of CMS. 

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................................... RATA Alternative .................................. No.

§ 63.8(g)(5) .............................................. Data Reduction .................................... No ......................... Subpart FFFFF specifies data reduction requirements. 

§ 63.9 ...................................................... Notification Requirements .................... Yes ........................ Additional notifications for CMS in 

§ 63.9(g) apply only to COMS. 

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)–(xii), 

(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1)–(6), (c)(9)–

(15), (d), (e)(1)–(2), (e)(4), (f) 

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.Yes ........................ Additional records for CMS in 

§ 63.10(c)(1)–(6), (9)–(15), and reports in § 63.10(d)(1)–(2) apply only 

to COMS. 

§ 63.10(b)(2) (xiii) .................................... CMS Records for RATA Alternative .... No.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ..................................... Records of Excess Emissions and Parameter Monitoring Exceedances for 

CMS.

No ......................... Subpart FFFFF specifies record requirements. 

§ 63.10(e)(3) ............................................ Excess Emission Reports .................... No ......................... Subpart FFFFF specifies reporting requirements. 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–17193 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 82 

[FRL–7962–3] 

RIN 2060–AN13 

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: 

Process for Exempting Critical Uses of 

Methyl Bromide for the 2005 

Supplemental Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: With this action EPA is 

proposing to authorize use of 610,665 

kilograms of methyl bromide for 

supplemental critical uses in 2005 

through the allocation of additional 

critical stock allowances (CSAs). This 

allocation would supplement the 

critical use allowances (CUAs) and 

CSAs previously allocated for 2005, as 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76982). 

Further, EPA is proposing to amend the 

existing list of exempted critical uses. 

With today’s action EPA is proposing to 

exempt methyl bromide for critical uses 

beyond the phaseout under the 

authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) and in accordance with the 

Montreal Protocol on Substances that 

Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). In 

the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

authorizing these CSAs and critical uses 

as a direct final rule without prior 

proposal because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and expect no 

adverse comment. We have explained 

our reasons for this authorization in the 

Preamble to the direct final rule. If we 

receive no adverse comment, we will 

not take further action on this proposed 

rule. If we receive adverse comment, we 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. We will address 

all public comments in the subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

We will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

companion direct final rule must be 

received on or before September 29, 

2005, or October 14, 2005 if a hearing 

is requested. Any party requesting a 

public hearing must notify the contact 

person listed below by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time on September 9, 2005. If 

a hearing is requested it will be held 

September 14, 2005. Persons interested 

in attending a public hearing should 

consult with the contact person below 

regarding the location and time of the 

hearing. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2004–

0506, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: mebr.allocation@epa.gov 

• Fax: 202–343–2337 attn: Marta 

Montoro 

• Mail: Air Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. In addition, 

please mail a copy of your comments on 

the information collection provisions to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and