Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33415

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4, Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

Air Protection Branch, Georgia

Environmental Protection Division,

Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, 4244 International

Parkway, Suite 120, Atlanta, Georgia

30354.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott M. Martin, Regulatory Planning

and Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555, X4216. Reference file GA–

30–3–9615.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 19, 1996.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–16342 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 60

[AD–FRL–5525–5]

RIN 2060–AG33

Standards of Performance for New

Stationary Sources for Nonmetallic

Mineral Processing Plants;

Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of

public hearing.

SUMMARY: This action proposes

revisions and clarifications to several

provisions of the standards of

performance for nonmetallic mineral

processing plants, which were

promulgated in the Federal Register on

August 1, 1985 (50 FR 31328). On

January 26, 1995, the National Stone

Association petitioned EPA to review

the existing standards. These revisions

are in keeping with President Clinton’s

Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The

intended effect of this action is to

reduce the costs of emission testing and

reporting and recordkeeping. The

affected industries and numerical

emission limits remain unchanged

except for individual, enclosed storage

bins.

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to provide interested persons

an opportunity for oral presentation of

data, views, or arguments concerning

the proposed revised standards.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be

received on or before August 26, 1996.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by July 23, 1996, a public

hearing will be held on August 5, 1996

beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested

in attending the hearing should call Ms.

Cathy Coats at (919) 541–5422 to verify

that a hearing will be held.

Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons

wishing to present oral testimony must

contact EPA by July 23, 1996 (contact

Ms. Cathy Coats at (919) 541–5422.)

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to: The Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center (MC–

6102), ATTN: Docket No. A–95–46, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Commenters wishing to submit

proprietary information for

consideration should clearly distinguish

such information from other comments,

and clearly label it ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ Submissions

containing such proprietary information

should be sent directly to the following

address, and not to the public docket, to

ensure that proprietary information is

not inadvertently placed in the docket:

Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms.

Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA Confidential

Business Information Manager, OAQPS/

MD–13; Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711. Information covered by

such a claim of confidentiality will be

disclosed by the EPA only to the extent

allowed and by the procedures set forth

in 40 CFR Part 2. If no claim of

confidentiality accompanies a

submission when it is received by the

EPA, the submission may be made

available to the public without further

notice to the commenter.

Docket. Docket No. A–95–46,

containing supporting information used

in developing the proposed revisions is

available for public inspection and

copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Monday through Friday, at the Air

and Radiation Docket and Information

Center (MC–6102), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202)

260–7548, fax (202) 260–4000. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

William Neuffer at (919) 541–5435,

Emission Standards Division (MD–13),

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North

Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Entities potentially regulated by

EPA’s final action on this proposed rule

are new, modified, or reconstructed

affected facilities in nonmetallic mineral

processing plants. These categories and

entities include:

Category Examples

Industry .... Crushed and broken stone, sand

and gravel, clay, rock salt,

gypsum, sodium compounds,

pumice, gilsonite, talc and

pyrophyllite, boron, barite,

fluorospar, feldspar, diatomite,

perlite, vermiculite, mica,

kyanite processing plants

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by final action on this

proposal. This table lists the types of

entities that EPA is now aware could

potentially be regulated by final action

on this proposal. Other types of entities

not listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

facility is regulated by final action on

this proposal, you should carefully

examine the applicability criteria in

§ 60.670 of the rule. If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

The information presented in this

preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background

II. Summary and Rationale for Proposed

Revisions to NSPS

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

B. Docket

C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

D. Office of Management and Budget

Reviews

1. Paperwork Reduction Act

2. Executive Order 12866

3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

I. Background.

Standards of performance for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants

were promulgated in the Federal

Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR

31328). These standards implement

section 111 of the Clean Air Act and

require all new, modified, and

reconstructed nonmetallic mineral

processing plants to achieve emission

levels that reflect the best demonstrated

system of continuous emission
33416 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

reduction, considering costs, nonair

quality health, and environmental and

energy impacts.

The promulgated standards apply to

new, modified, and reconstructed

facilities at plants that process any of

the following 18 nonmetallic minerals:

crushed and broken stone, sand and

gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum, 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.

On January 26, 1995, the National

Stone Association (NSA) petitioned the

EPA, pursuant to the Clean Air Act and

the Administrative Procedures Act, to

review the existing NSPS for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants

(40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO). In its

petition, NSA and its member

companies requested the EPA to review

and consider revising, in particular, the

provisions in the NSPS that pertain to

the test methods and procedures. Also,

NSA requested that several of the

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements be reduced or eliminated.

II. Summary and Rationale for

Proposed Revisions to NSPS

A. Summary of Proposed Revisions

As a result of the EPA’s review of

concerns raised by NSA and its member

companies and discussions with State

and Local air pollution control agencies,

the Administrator has concluded that

several revisions to the NSPS are

warranted. The following is a brief

summary of the proposed revisions to

the NSPS, followed by a discussion of

the basis for the proposed revisions.

1. Section 60.670, Applicability and

designation of affected facility, is being

revised:

a. To clarify that facilities located in

underground mines are not subject to

the NSPS;

b. To exempt wet screening

operations from all requirements of the

NSPS, except the recordkeeping and

reporting requirements in § 60.676(g).

c. To clarify within subpart OOO

which General Provisions (40 CFR Part

60, subpart A) requirements apply to

owners and operators of affected

facilities subject to the NSPS. A table

has been included to clarify the

applicable General Provisions

requirements.

2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is being

revised to add a definition of ‘‘wet

screening operation.’’

3. Section 60.672, Standard for

particulate matter, is being revised:

a. To state the particulate matter

standard for an individual, enclosed

storage bin ducted to a single control

device.

b. To clarify that affected facilities are

subject to a standard for stack emissions

of particulate matter and a stack opacity

standard.

4. Section 60.675, Test methods and

procedures, is being revised:

a. To reduce the duration of Method

9 observations of fugitive emissions for

compliance for any affected facility from

3 hours (30 6-minute averages) to 1 hour

(10 6-minute averages) if there are no

individual readings greater than 10%

opacity and there are no more than 3

individual readings of 10% opacity

during the 1 hour test period.

b. To allow the use of Method 9, in

lieu of Method 5, for determining

compliance for fabric filter collectors

controlling particulate matter emissions

from an individual, enclosed storage bin

ducted to a baghouse that only controls

emissions from this bin. For compliance

purposes, the duration of the Method 9

observations for any baghouse

controlling an individual, enclosed

storage bin will be 1 hour (10 6-minute

averages).

c. To reduce the General Provisions

(section 60.8(d)) notification

requirement from 30 days to 7 days

prior notice of any rescheduled

performance test if there is a delay in

conducting any previously scheduled

performance test for which 30 days

notice has been supplied under this

NSPS.

5. Section 60.676, Reporting and

recordkeeping, is being revised:

a. To delete the requirement to report

‘‘like-for-like replacements’’ of

equipment to the Director, Emission

Standards Division (section 60.676(b)).

b. To waive the requirement in the

General Provisions (section 60.7(a)(2))

for notification of the anticipated date of

initial startup of an affected facility.

c. To allow a single notification of the

actual date of initial startup of a

combination of affected facilities in a

production line that begin initial startup

simultaneously, in lieu of multiple

notifications of the actual date of initial

startup of individual affected facilities.

The notification must include a

description of each affected facility,

equipment manufacturer, and serial

number, if available.

B. Rationale for Proposed Revisions to

NSPS

1. Applicability

a. As a result of past inquiries from

some plant owners and operators as to

whether crushers or any other

equipment used in nonmetallic mineral

processing that are located in

underground mines are subject to the

NSPS, the EPA is clarifying its intent by

adding language to the regulation to

state that this NSPS does not apply to

facilities located in underground mines.

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 not covered by the standards.

Therefore, the EPA is clarifying its

intent that crushers and other facilities

located in underground mines not be

regulated under the NSPS (§ 60.670(a)).

b. The EPA is also proposing a

revision to § 60.670(a), which states that

the provisions of the NSPS do not

apply, except for one-time

recordkeeping and reporting, to wet

screening operations and associated belt

conveyors downstream of the wet

screening operation in the production

line up to, but not including, the next

crusher, grinding mill or dry screening

operation in the production line of a

nonmetallic minerals processing plant.

For further clarification, ‘‘wet screening

operation’’ is being defined in the

regulation as ‘‘a screening facility

designed and operated at all times to

remove unwanted material from the

product by a washing process whereby

the product is completely saturated with

water.’’ There is no potential for air

emissions from either screening or

conveying operations in the wet/wash

end of a processing plant unless a

crusher, grinding mill or dry screeening

operation is included in the process.

Therefore, wet screening operations are

not subject to the provisions of

§§ 60.672, 60.674, and 60.675 under this

regulation (subpart OOO) or the General

Provisions (subpart A). The only

requirement for wet screening

operations is a one-time recordkeeping

and reporting requirement under section

60.676(g) of the NSPS.

It is possible, however, that a

screening facility/operation may be

operated as wet screening at one

location where a washing process is

used to remove unwanted material from

the product; later, at the same location

or after movement to another location,

it may no longer operate as wet

screening. In these cases, where it

ceases operating as a wet screen,

applicability of all the provisions of this

regulation would be triggered and the

screening operation would become an

affected facility subject to all of the

requirements of this regulation and the

General Provisions (Subpart A). For

tracking purposes, a one-time
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33417

recordkeeping and reporting

requirement for wet screening

operations has been added to the NSPS

(§ 60.676(g)).

c. The NSA and its member

companies requested clarification of the

applicable General Provisions (40 CFR

part 60, subpart A) requirements for

owners and operators of affected

facilities subject to this NSPS (Subpart

OOO). They stated that many of their

members were unaware that the General

Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A)

existed or applied in addition to this

NSPS. Therefore, in an effort to facilitate

an awareness and a better

understanding of the General Provisions

requirements and implementation of

those requirements, the EPA is adding a

table to the regulation (subpart OOO)

that specifies the provisions of subpart

A that apply and those that do not apply

to owners and operators of affected

facilities subject to Subpart OOO.

2. Standard for Particulate Matter

In the past, there have been several

requests for clarification of § 60.672(a)

of the regulation regarding whether

owners or operators of affected facilities

are subject to both a standard for stack

emissions of particulate matter and a

stack opacity standard. The preamble

for the promulgated rule clearly states

that affected facilities are subject to both

the stack emission limit and stack

opacity standard (50 FR 31329-first

column; August 1, 1985). Therefore, the

word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph (a)(1)

in § 60.672 has been deleted to remove

any ambiquity in the requirements.

3. Test Methods and Procedures

a. One of the concerns of the NSA and

its member companies was the duration

of Method 9 testing (3 hours for each

fugitive-type emission source) for

fugitive emissions from affected

facilities such as crushers and belt

conveyor transfer points, in situations

when almost all 15-second observations

are observed to be 0 percent opacity.

They asserted that usually no emissions

were observed from these affected

facilities (when properly maintained

and operated) during the Method 9

observations, and therefore they did not

believe that 3 hours of observations

were justified or necessary for

determining compliance. Due to the

large number of these affected facilities

at nonmetallic mineral processing

plants, the amount of time and the cost

for Method 9 observations from these

sources were considered by NSA to be

very burdensome.

The General Provisions (§ 60.11(b))

require 3 hours (30 6-minute averages)

of Method 9 observations for

determining compliance for fugitive

emission sources. However, after review

and evaluation of data submitted by the

industry, the EPA has decided to reduce

the Method 9 testing duration for

observing fugitive emissions from any

affected facility subject to this NSPS

from 3 hours (30 6-minute averages) to

1 hour (10 6-minute averages) if there

are no individual readings greater than

10% opacity and there are no more than

3 individual readings of 10% opacity

during this first hour.

The data submitted to the EPA by

industry for review was compiled from

several hundred visible emission tests

conducted by the industry for each type

of affected facility subject to the NSPS.

The majority (52 percent) of the visible

emission tests were conducted for belt

conveyor transfer points. The data

included opacity readings from 58

different 3 hour tests. For the first hour,

the test results showed that 51 of the 58

3-hour tests had no individual readings

of 10 percent or greater. Only 3 belt

conveyor transfer points had individual

readings greater than 10%. Only 5 belt

conveyor transfer points had more than

3 individual readings of 10%. The most

obvious result obtained from the tests

was the consistency of the readings from

hour to hour. Readings during the first

hour of testing were in line with

readings taken during hours 2 and 3. If

a problem existed at a transfer point or

other fugitive emission source, it would

be evident during the first hour of

testing. Therefore, for these reasons,

EPA believes that 1 hour (10 6-minute

averages) of Method 9 observations is

sufficient for any affected facility to

show compliance with the fugitive

emission standard if there are no

individual readings greater than 10%

opacity and there are no more than 3

individual readings of 10% opacity

during the first hour.

b. Also of concern to NSA and its

members is the requirement in the NSPS

for Method 5 testing of fabric filter

collectors (baghouses) controlling

particulate matter emissions from

individual, enclosed storage bins ducted

to a single baghouse. They requested

that individual, enclosed storage bin

emissions be exempted from Method 5

testing because the baghouse outlet is

not amenable to Method 5 testing due to

the intermittent nature of individual

storage bin operations and the small air

flow rates.

Information supplied by NSA

indicates that Method 5 testing cannot

be performed for baghouses that only

control emissions from individual,

enclosed storage bins unless the

emissions are combined with emissions

from other storage bins or other affected

facilities in order to determine

compliance. Therefore, the EPA is

proposing to exempt a baghouse that

only controls emissions from an

individual, enclosed storage bin from

Method 5 stack emission testing.

Compliance for an individual, enclosed

storage bin ducted to a single baghouse

will be determined by Method 9

(§ 60.672(f)). For compliance purposes,

one hour (10 6-minute averages) of

Method 9 observations will be required

for each individual, enclosed storage

bin. Multiple storage bins with

combined stack emissions controlled by

a baghouse are subject to Method 5

testing and concurrent Method 9 testing

as required under § 60.672(g).

c. The General Provisions (§ 60.8(d))

require 30 days prior notice of any

performance test, ‘‘* * * except as

specified under other subparts * * *.’’

In cases where a performance test must

be rescheduled, due to operational

problems, etc., it is not always

reasonable or necessary to provide 30

days prior notice to EPA or the State of

the new date of the performance test.

Based on conversations with personnel

who are affected by the notification of

the new date of the performance test

(i.e., personnel at EPA Regional Offices

and State agencies), the EPA has

determined that after the initial 30-day

notification, then notice provided 7

days prior to a rescheduled test is

sufficient time to provide the Regional,

State or Local agencies the opportunity

to have an observer present. Therefore,

§ 60.675 has been revised to reflect this

allowance.

4. Reporting and Recordkeeping

a. Under the promulgated standards,

the replacement of an existing facility

with a new facility of equal or smaller

size and having the same function (likefor-like replacement) is exempt from

compliance with the emission limits of

the NSPS (§ 60.670(d)(1)). In order to

qualify for this exemption, an owner or

operator replacing an existing facility

with a new facility of equal or smaller

size must report this to the EPA

Regional Offices and to the States (if the

particular State has been delegated

NSPS authority). This information and

additional information is also required

to be reported to the Director of the

Emission Standards Division of EPA in

order to assess the frequency and

characteristics of such replacements.

The EPA has reviewed this

requirement and has determined that

the report to the Director of the

Emission Standards Division is no

longer needed for like-for-like

replacements. Therefore, in an effort to

streamline the reporting requirements of
33418 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

this NSPS, this requirement in

§ 60.676(b) has been deleted. However,

the information requested under

§ 60.676(a) is still required to be

reported to EPA Regional Offices, and

State or local agencies if they have

received NSPS delegation authority.

b. The EPA has also reviewed the

General Provisions requirement

(§ 60.4(a)) for owners and operators of

affected facilities to send copies of all

requests, reports, applications,

submittals and other communications to

the appropriate EPA Regional Office in

cases where the State has been

delegated authority to enforce the NSPS.

In these cases, some EPA Regional

Offices will consider waiver of this

requirement for affected facilities

subject to this subpart on a plant-byplant basis. The method for

accomplishing this reporting reduction

on a plant-by-plant basis would be

through the Operating Permit for the

individual plant. Thus, some plants

have an option available to them for

further reporting reductions.

c. The General Provisions

(§ 60.7(a)(2)) also require a notification

of the anticipated date of initial startup

for new affected facilities. After

reviewing this requirement, the EPA has

determined that this notification can be

waived for owners and operators of

affected facilities subject to this NSPS

without affecting the enforcement of

this regulation. Due to the large number

of plants being regulated under this

regulation, the deletion of this reporting

requirement under this subpart is being

made for purposes of streamlining and

further reduction of the reporting

burden on both large and small plant

owners or operators.

d. The General Provisions [section

60.7(a)(3)] require a notification of the

actual date of initial startup for each

affected facility within the plant. The

NSA and its member companies

requested the EPA to review this

requirement as it pertains to owners and

operators of the nonmetallic minerals

processing NSPS. They cited the

examples of the addition of several new

affected facilities being added to a

production line or the addition of a

whole new production line, and they

requested whether, for notification

purposes only, a single notification of

the actual date of initial startup could be

submitted for all of these affected

facilities, in lieu of several separate

notifications.

After a review of this situation, the

EPA has determined, for notification

purposes only, that a single notification

of the actual date of initial startup of a

combination of affected facilities in a

production line that begin initial startup

simultaneously would be acceptable.

The notification must include a

description of each affected facility,

equipment manufacturer, and serial

number of the equipment, if available,

for future compliance purposes. A

single notification for multiple affected

facilities starting production at the same

time would have no adverse impact on

enforcement of the standards. Therefore,

in an effort to further reduce the

reporting and recordkeeping

requirements of this regulation, section

60.676 has been revised to reflect this

allowance.

This revision would also benefit the

EPA and State and local agencies in

terms of reducing staff review time for

numerous single notifications of the

actual date of initial startup.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

A public hearing will be held, if

requested, to discuss the proposed

revisions to the standards in accordance

with Section 307(d)(5) of the Clean Air

Act. Persons wishing to make oral

presentations on the proposed revisions

should contact the EPA (see

ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is

requested and held, EPA will ask

clarifying questions during the oral

presentation but will not respond to the

presentations or comments. To provide

an opportunity for all who may wish to

speak, oral presentations will be limited

to 15 minutes each. Any member of the

public may file a written statement on

or before August 26, 1996. Written

statements should be addressed to the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and

refer to Docket No. A–95–46. Written

statements and supporting information

will be considered with equivalent

weight as any oral statement and

supporting information subsequently

presented at a public hearing, if held. A

verbatim transcript of the hearing and

written statements will be placed in the

docket and be available for public

inspection and copying, or mailed upon

request, at the Air and Radiation Docket

and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

B. Docket

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

considered by the EPA in the

development of this proposed

rulemaking. The principal purposes of

the docket are: (1) To allow interested

parties to identify and locate documents

so that they can effectively participate

in the rulemaking process and (2) to

serve as the official record in case of

judicial review (except for interagency

review materials (section 307(d)(7)(A) of

the Act)).

C. Clean Air Act Procedural

Requirements

1. Administrator Listing—Under

Section 111 of the Act, establishment of

standards of performance for

nonmetallic mineral processing plants

was preceded by the Administrator’s

determination (40 CFR 60.16, 44 FR

49222, dated August 21, 1979) that these

sources contribute significantly to air

pollution which may reasonably be

anticipated to endanger public health or

welfare.

2. External Participation—In

accordance with section 117 of the Act,

publication of the proposed revisions to

the NSPS was preceded by consultation

with a national trade association

composed of 570 member companies

and several States. The Administrator

welcomes comments on today’s

proposed revisions to the NSPS.

3. Economic Impact Assessment—

Section 317 of the Act requires the

Administrator to prepare an economic

impact assessment for any new source

standard of performance promulgated

under Section 111(b) of the Act. Today’s

proposed rulemaking is for clarifications

and minor revisions to the applicability,

definitions, test methods and

procedures, and reporting and

recordkeeping sections of the regulation.

No additional controls or other costs are

being incurred as a result of these

revisions. The proposed revisions

would result in a cost savings for the

industry (reduction of certain testing

and recordkeeping and reporting

requirements) and the EPA and State/

Local agencies (reduction in staff time

needed to review fewer reports).

Therefore, no economic impact

assessment for the proposed revisions to

the standards was conducted.

D. Office of Management and Budget

Reviews

1. Paperwork Reduction Act

As required by the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et

seq., an ‘‘information collection

request’’ (ICR) document has been

prepared by the EPA (ICR No. llll)

to reflect the revised/reduced

information requirements of the

proposed revised regulation and a copy

may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,

OPPE Regulatory Information Division

(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington,

DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260–2740.

Under the existing NSPS, the industry

recordkeeping and reporting burden and

costs for an owner or operator of a new
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33419

nonmetallic mineral processing plant

was estimated at 820 hours and $27,100

for the first year of operation. The vast

majority of the estimated hours (670)

were attributed to required Method 5

and Method 9 performance testing of

affected facilities. Under the proposed

revised NSPS, a 1-hour Method 9 test is

allowed in lieu of the Method 5 test for

individual, enclosed storage bins. In

addition, the duration of Method 9 tests

for most fugitive emission sources and

individual, enclosed storage bin

emission sources has been reduced from

3 hours to 1 hour. Also, plant owners or

operators are allowed to submit one

notification of actual startup for several

affected facilities in a production line

that begin operation the same day, in

lieu of multiple notifications for each

affected facility. The proposed revised

NSPS is also waiving the General

Provisions requirement to submit a

notification of anticipated startup for

each affected facility. Therefore, the

revised annual estimated industry

recordkeeping and reporting burden and

costs for an owner or operator of a new

nonmetallic mineral processing plant

are 480 hours and $15,800, the majority

of which is due to performance testing.

This represents an estimated reduction

in the average emission testing,

recordkeeping and reporting burden of

340 hours and $11,300 for a new plant

in the first year. This collection of

information is estimated to have an

average annual government

recordkeeping and reporting burden of

320 hours over the first 3 years. 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 are listed

in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR ch. 15.

Comments are requested on the

reductions discussed in this preamble.

Send comments on the ICR to the

Director, OPPE Regulatory Information

Division (2136), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Include the ICR

number in any correspondence. The

final rule will respond to any public

comments on the reduced information

collection requirements contained in

this proposal.

2. Executive Order 12866 Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)], the EPA must

determine whether the proposed

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and

therefore subject to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) review

and the requirements of this Executive

Order to prepare a regulatory impact

analysis (RIA). The Order defines

‘‘significant’’ regulatory action as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety in

State, local or tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees

or loan programs or the rights and

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.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that the proposed revisions to the

standards are ‘‘not significant’’ because

none of the above criteria are triggered

by the proposed revisions. The

proposed revisions would decrease the

cost of complying with the revised

standards.

3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

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,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement including a costbenefit analysis for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year.

The EPA has determined that today’s

action, which proposes revisions and

clarifications to the existing regulation,

decreases the cost of compliance with

this proposed revised regulation.

Therefore, the requirements of the

Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to

this proposed action.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Compliance

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal

agencies to give special consideration to

the impact of regulations on small

entities, which are small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governments. The major purpose of the

RFA is to keep paperwork and

regulatory requirements from getting out

of proportion to the scale of the entities

being regulated, without compromising

the objectives of, in this case, the Act.

If a regulation is likely to have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities, the

EPA may give special consideration to

those small entities when analyzing

regulatory alternatives and drafting the

regulation. The impact of this regulation

upon small businesses was analyzed as

part of the economic impact analysis

performed for the proposed standards

for the nonmetallic minerals processing

plants (48 FR 39566, August 31, 1983).

As a result of this analysis, plants

operating at small capacities were

exempted from the requirements of the

standards. Today’s proposed revisions

to the standards do not affect these

exempted small plants; that is, they

continue to be exempted from the

standards. In addition, the main thrust

of the proposed revisions to the

standards is a reduction of the reporting

and recordkeeping requirements for

owners and operators of all affected

facilities.

Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C.

605(b), I hereby certify that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because the

impact of the proposed rule is not

significant.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Nonmetallic mineral

processing plants, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Intergovernmental relations.

Dated: June 17, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, it is proposed to amend 40

CFR part 60, subpart OOO as follows:
33420 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules

PART 60—STANDARDS OF

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW

STATIONARY SOURCES

1. The authority citation for part 60

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414,

7416, 7429 and 7601.

2. It is proposed to amend 60.670 by

revising paragraphs (a) and (d)(2), and

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§ 60.670 Applicability and designation of

affected facility.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs

(b), (c), and (d) of this section, the

provisions of this subpart 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. All facilities

located in underground mines are

exempted from the provisions of this

subpart. Except as required in

§ 60.676(g), the provisions of this

subpart do not apply to wet screening

operations and associated conveyors

downstream of the wet screening

operation in the production line up to,

but not including, the next crusher,

grinding mill, or dry screening

operation.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) An owner or operator complying

with this paragraph shall submit the

information required in § 60.676(a).

* * * * *

(f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the

provisions of subpart A that apply and

those that do not apply to owners and

operators of affected facilities subject to

this subpart.

2a. It is proposed to add Table 1 to

Subpart OOO to read as follows:

TABLE 1.—APPLICABILITY OF SUBPART A TO SUBPART OOO

Subpart A reference

Applies to

subpart

OOO?

Comment

60.1 Applicability ........................................................................ Yes.

60.2 Definitions .......................................................................... Yes.

60.3 Units and abbreviations ..................................................... Yes.

60.4 Address—(a) ..................................................................... Yes.

(b) ...................................................................................... Yes.

60.5 Deter. of construction or modification ............................... Yes.

60.6 Review of plans ................................................................. Yes.

60.7 Notification and recordkeeping .......................................... Yes Except in (a)(2), report of anticipated date of initial startup is

not required [60.676(g)].

60.8 Performance tests ............................................................. Yes. Except in (d), after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled

perf. test, any rescheduled perf. test requires 7 days notice,

not 30 days [60.675(g)].

60.9 Availability of information .................................................. Yes.

60.10 State authority ................................................................. Yes.

60.11 Compliance with standards and maintenance requirements.Yes Except in (b), under certain conditions [sec. 60.675 (c)(4) and

(c)(5)], Method 9 observation may be reduced from 3 hrs. to

1 hr.

60.12 Circumvention .................................................................. Yes.

60.13 Monitoring requirements .................................................. Yes.

60.14 Modification ..................................................................... Yes.

60.15 Reconstruction ................................................................. Yes.

60.16 Priority list ........................................................................ Yes.

60.17 Incorporations by reference ............................................ Yes.

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

60.19 General notification and reporting requirements ............. Yes.

3. It is proposed to amend § 60.671 by

adding in alphabetical order the

definition of Wet screening operation to

read as follows:

§ 60.671 Definitions.

* * * * *

Wet screening operation means a

screening facility designed and operated

at all times to remove unwanted

material from the product by a washing

process whereby the product is

completely saturated with water.

* * * * *

4. It is proposed to amend § 60.672 by

removing the word ‘‘or’’ after paragraph

(a)(1), by revising paragraphs (b) and (c),

and by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to

read as follows:

§ 60.672 Standard for particulate matter.

(a) * * *

(1) Contain particulate matter in

excess of 0.05 g/dscm.

(2) * * *

(b) On and after the sixtieth day 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, no owner or operator subject to

the provisions of this subpart shall

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any transfer point on

belt conveyors or from any other

affected facility any fugitive emissions

which exhibit greater than 10 percent

opacity, except as provided in

paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this

section.

(c) On and after the sixtieth day 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, no owner or operator shall

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any crusher, at which

a capture system is not used, fugitive

emissions which exhibit greater than 15

percent opacity.

* * * * *

(f) On and after the sixtieth day 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, no owner or operator shall

cause to be discharged into the

atmosphere from any baghouse that only
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Proposed Rules 33421

controls emissions from an individual

enclosed storage bin, stack emissions

which exhibit greater than 7 percent

opacity.

(g) Owners or operators of multiple

storage bins with combined stack

emissions shall comply with the

emission limits in paragraph (a) of this

section.

5. It is proposed to amend § 60.675 by

revising paragraph (d) and adding

paragraph (g) to read as follows:

§ 60.675 Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *

(d) When determining compliance

with the fugitive emissions standard for

any affected facility described under

§ 60.672(b) and where there are no

individual readings greater than 10%

opacity and where there are no more

than 3 readings of 10% opacity for the

first hour of testing of this affected

facility and the opacity of stack

emissions from any baghouse that only

controls emissions from an individual,

enclosed storage bin under § 60.672(f),

using Method 9, the duration of the

Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour

(10 6-minute averages).

* * * * *

(g) If, after 30 days notice for an

initially scheduled performance test,

there is a delay (due to operational

problems, etc.) in conducting any

rescheduled performance test required

in this section, the owner or operator of

an affected facility shall submit to the

Administrator at least 7 days prior

notice of any rescheduled performance

test.

6. Section 60.676 is amended by

removing and reserving paragraph (b),

revising paragraph (f), redesignating

paragraph (g) as paragraph (j) and

revising newly designated (j), and

adding new paragraphs (g), (h), and (i)

to read as follows:

§ 60.676 Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *

(b) [reserved]

* * * * *

(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, including reports of opacity

observations made using Method 9 to

demonstrate compliance with § 60.672

(b), (c), and (f), and reports of

observations using Method 22 to

demonstrate compliance with

§ 60.672(e).

(g) The owner or operator of any wet

screening operation and associated

conveyor shall keep a record describing

the location of these operations and

shall submit an initial report describing

the location of these operations within

30 days. If, subsequent to the initial

report, any screening operation ceases to

operate as wet screening, the owner or

operator shall submit a report of this

change and shall immediately comply

with all of the requirements of the

regulation for an affected facility. These

reports shall be submitted within 30

days following such change.

(h) The Subpart A requirement under

§ 60.7(a)(2) for notification of the

anticipated date of initial startup of an

affected facility shall be waived for

owners or operators of affected facilities

regulated under this subpart.

(i) A notification of the actual date of

initial startup of each affected facility

shall be submitted to the Administrator.

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.

(j) The requirements of this section

remain in force until and unless the

Agency, in delegating enforcement

authority to a State under section 111 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.

[FR Doc. 96–16012 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 86

[AMS-FRL–5526–9]

Control of Emissions of Air Pollution

from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA proposes

new emission standards and related

provisions for heavy-duty engines

intended for highway operation,

beginning in the 2004 model year. The

proposed provisions represent a large

reduction (approximately 50 percent) in

emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), as

well as reductions in hydrocarbons (HC)

and nitrate particulate matter (PM) from

trucks and buses. If the proposed

standards are implemented, the

resulting emission reductions would

translate into significant, long-term

improvements in air quality in many

areas of the U.S. This would provide

much-needed assistance to a range of

states and regions facing ozone and

particulate air quality problems that are

causing a range of adverse health effects

for their citizens, especially in terms of

respiratory impairment and related

illnesses.

EPA is also proposing several

provisions to increase the durability of

emission controls and to provide

flexibility for manufacturers in

complying with the stringent new

standards. The Agency previously

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking relating to this

action and addresses here a number of

the comments received on the Advance

Notice. EPA believes the proposed

program would result in significant

progress throughout the country in

protecting public health and the

environment.

DATES: EPA requests comment on the

proposal rulemaking no later than

August 26, 1996.

EPA will hold a public hearing on this

proposal on July 25, 1996.

EPA will also hold a public meeting

on July 19, 1996, to discuss the

proposed HDE regulations and receive

informal public input on them, and to

discuss other potential mobile source

controls identified in the California

Ozone State Implementation Plan for

the South Coast (the greater Los Angeles

area).

More information about commenting

on this action and on the public hearing

and meeting may be found under Public

Participation, in Section II of

SUPPLEMENARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

proposal including the draft regulatory

text and Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA) are contained in Public Docket A–

95–27, located at room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460.

The docket may be inspected from 8:00

a.m. until 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday. A reasonable fee may be charged

by EPA for copying docket materials.

Comments on this proposal should be

sent to Public Docket A–95–27 at the

above address. EPA requests that a copy

of comments also be sent to Chris

Lieske, U.S. EPA, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division, 2565 Plymouth

Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.

The hearing on this proposal will be

held at the Marriott Hotel and