[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53163-53178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21509]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154; FRL-8715-8]
RIN 2060-AO13


Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 
112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production 
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the area source category list by changing the 
name of the ferroalloys production category to clarify that it includes 
all types of ferroalloys. We are also adding two additional products 
(calcium carbide and silicon metal) to the source category. Because 
calcium carbide and silicon metal production involve the use of 
equipment and processes similar to those employed in ferroalloy 
production, we are proposing to address these two products as part of 
the ferroalloys production category. EPA is also proposing national 
emissions standards for control of hazardous air pollutants for area 
source ferroalloys production facilities. The proposed emissions 
standards for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed 
determination as to what constitutes the generally available control 
technology (GACT) or management practices for the source category. We 
are proposing to exempt the ferroalloys production area source 
categories from title V permitting requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008, unless 
a public hearing is requested by September 25, 2008. If a hearing is 
requested on these proposed rules, written comments must be received by 
October 30, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is

[[Page 53164]]

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 through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Area Source National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Ferroalloys Production Facilities Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the 
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 
Air Docket is (202)566-1742.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0154. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
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 www.regulations.gov, 
your e-mail 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#06656e6f68286569687467624663766728616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="25464d4c4b0b464a4b574441654055440b424a53">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards.
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
these proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by these proposed standards?
    C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and 
available controls?
    D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys 
production?
III. Revision to the Source Category List
IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements
    A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?
    C. What are these proposed standards?
    D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?
    E. What are the monitoring requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
V. Rationale for this Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in 
this proposed rule?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this are source category from 
title V permit requirements?
VI. Summary of Impacts of these Proposed Standards
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
proposed standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    Electrometallurgical                 331112  Area source facilities
     Ferroalloy Product                           that manufacture
     Manufacturing.                               ferroalloys.
    Primary Smelting and                 331419  Area source facilities
     Refining of Nonferrous                       that manufacture
     Metal (except Copper and                     silicon metal.
     Aluminum).
    All Other Basic Inorganic            325188  Area source facilities
     Chemical Manufacturing.                      that manufacture
                                                  calcium carbide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated 
by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria 
in 40 CFR 63.11393 of subpart YYYYYY (National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Area Sources: Ferroalloys 
Production Facilities). 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).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental

[[Page 53165]]

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this 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.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning these proposed rules by September 25, 2008, we will hold a 
public hearing on September 30, 2008. If you are interested in 
attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-
7966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is 
held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research 
Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 
nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for these 
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
NESHAP for both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major 
source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or 
more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An 
area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. We also implemented these requirements through the 
Strategy. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from 
stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of GACT or 
management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous 
air pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate 
report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 
1989), which describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories like this one that 
have a majority of small businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by 
December 15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 
2006). Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining 
source categories that are due in December 2008.

B. What source categories are affected by these proposed standards?

    We listed the ferroalloys source category under CAA section 
112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 
70427) to the original source category list included in the 1999 
Integrated Urban Strategy. The inclusion of this source category on the 
section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions 
data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. 
Ferroalloys production was listed for its contributions toward meeting 
the 90 percent requirement of chromium compounds, manganese compounds, 
and nickel compounds.
    Based on current information, we believe that there are 10 
facilities currently operating that would be subject to the proposed 
area source standards. Seven of these facilities are considered bulk 
ferroalloy producers, meaning that they use large electric arc furnaces 
(EAF) and typically produce anywhere from 8,000 tpy of product per 
furnace up to over 100,000 tpy of product per furnace. Two of these 
facilities currently produce ferrosilicon; three produce silicon metal; 
and two produce calcium carbide. There are also three specialty 
ferroalloy producers. These producers use small EAF or other small 
reaction vessels with lower throughput rates, typically around 10,000 
tpy or less for total plant-wide production of ferrovanadium and/or 
ferromolybdenum. All of these facilities are well controlled as a 
result of State standards and permitting requirements and regulations 
issued under other sections of the CAA.

C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available 
controls?

    Bulk ferroalloys are produced using submerged EAF, which are 
furnaces in which the electrodes are submerged into the charge. 
Submerged EAF are

[[Page 53166]]

predominately characterized by their energy rating and design-type. 
Furnace design capacities typically range from 10 megawatts (MW) to 50 
MW. Submerged EAF are classified as open, semi-sealed, or sealed, 
depending on their cover configuration.
    The submerged arc process is a reduction smelting operation. The 
reactants consist of metallic ores (e.g., ferrous oxides, silicon 
oxides, manganese oxides, chrome oxides) and a carbon-source reducing 
agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and low-volatility 
coal, or wood chips. Limestone may also be added as a flux material. In 
the case of calcium carbide production, the raw materials are coke and 
lime. The raw materials are charged to the furnace and then smelted in 
the furnace. The molten product is tapped from the furnace periodically 
or continuously and then cast and allowed to harden before being 
crushed and sized to fit customer specifications.
    Specialty ferroalloys such as ferromolybdenum and ferrovanadium use 
an exothermic (metallothermic) process to produce high-grade alloys 
with low-carbon content. The intermediate molten alloy used in the 
process may come directly from a submerged EAF (such as the case in 
ferrovanadium production at one plant) or from another type of heating 
device. Silicon or aluminum combines with oxygen in the molten alloy, 
resulting in a sharp temperature rise and strong agitation of the 
molten bath. Aluminum reduction is used to produce ferrovanadium and a 
mixed alumino/silico thermal process is used for producing 
ferromolybdenum. Exothermic processes are generally carried out in open 
vessels and tend to occur very quickly--sometimes within 5 to 10 
minutes and up to 25 minutes. Once the reaction is initiated, it is 
self-perpetuating until all of the charge is used up.
    The electrometallurgical operation is the primary source of 
potential metal HAP emissions at the plant, and all processes have 
capture systems to capture the emissions, which are ducted to control 
devices. Emission points are primary emissions (from the combustion 
zone at the top of the furnace or other vessel), tapping emissions when 
molten product is poured into a ladle for transfer to the casting area, 
and fugitive emissions from the furnace.
    The metallic HAP and any condensable organics are controlled by 
particulate matter (PM) control devices, primarily fabric filters and 
scrubbers.

D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys production?

    As described in 40 CFR 60.260, subpart Z, the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for ferroalloys production facilities 
apply to the following sources: ``Electric submerged arc furnaces which 
produce silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon, silicomanganese 
zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-carbon ferrochrome, 
charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferromanganese 
silicon, or calcium carbide; and dust-handling equipment.'' Any new or 
reconstructed sources constructed after October 21, 1974, are subject 
to this proposed rule.
    As described in 40 CFR 63.1650, subpart XXX, the major source 
NESHAP applies to the following sources: ``All new and existing 
ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facilities that 
manufacture ferromanganese or silicomanganese and are major sources, or 
are co-located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.''
    Sources that would be subject to this proposed area source rule are 
subject to the NSPS if they have a new or reconstructed furnace. 
However, sources that are subject to the major source NESHAP would not 
be covered by this proposed area source rule.

III. Revision to the Source Category List

    This proposed rule announces a revision to the area source category 
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant 
to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision includes changing the name of 
the source category to clarify that it includes all types of 
ferroalloys and adding two additional products (calcium carbide and 
silicon metal) to the source category.
    Specifically, the revision changes the name of the listed area 
source category, from ``Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and 
Silicomanganese.'' to ``Ferroalloys Production Facilities.'' We are 
making this revision to clarify that the source category includes all 
types of ferroalloys. This is simply a change in the name of the source 
category and does not change the universe of sources that were the 
basis of the area source inventory. The underlying 1990 emissions 
inventory was based on data derived from the Toxics Release Inventory 
for the standard industrial classification (SIC) 3313, 
Electrometallurgical Products, except Steel. The U.S. Department of 
Labor defines this SIC as follows:

    Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing ferro and 
nonferrous metal additive alloys by electrometallurgical or 
metallothermic processes, including high percentage ferroalloys and 
high percentage nonferrous additive alloys.

This SIC definition lists several products, including ferromanganese, 
ferromolybdenum, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium and ferrovanadium. 
Therefore, this name change is being made to be consistent with the 
scope of facilities that formed the basis of the original listing.
    The source category list should be clarified regarding 
ferrotitanium production, however. There are two processes available to 
produce ferrotitanium. One is properly covered by SIC 3313, because it 
is an electrometallurgical and metallothermic process. This process 
produces 35 percent ferrotitanium, but is only used today in Russia, 
China, Brazil, and India. There are no known domestic producers. This 
35 percent grade product is produced using rutile ore and/or illmenite 
ore, and aluminum is used as the reductant. It is an endothermic 
reaction that requires external heat such as from an EAF. In summary, 
this process would be covered by SIC 3313 since it is an 
electrometallurgical and metallothermic operation that purifies and 
reduces a metal compound.
    In contrast, the two existing domestic ferrotitanium producers use 
an induction melting process to produce a 70 percent grade 
ferrotitanium. This process uses scrap metal and is neither a reduction 
nor a purification process. These facilities were not intended to be 
covered in the section 112(k) inventory under this SIC code. Similarly, 
the same induction melting process is used to produce ferroaluminum, 
and this production process is not considered part of the ferroalloy 
production source category.
    As described below, after examining the 1990 inventory and the 
metallurgical operations included in the inventory, we concluded that 
silicon metal production and calcium carbide production are 
appropriately covered by the ferroalloys production source category.
    Silicon metal producers are covered by SIC 3339, Primary Smelting 
and Refining of Nonferrous Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum. Sources 
reporting to SIC 3339 were addressed in the section 112(k) inventory 
for the following metal HAP: Arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and 
nickel. However, when the Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous 
Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum source

[[Page 53167]]

category was listed, its scope was limited to zinc, cadmium and 
beryllium smelting.\1\ The subsequent area source standards that were 
proposed and promulgated only address these sources. See 40 CFR part 
63, Subpart GGGGGG-NESHAP for Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources-
Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium. Silicon metal production uses virtually 
the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was included in 
the NSPS. Because silicon metal production was not included in the 
Primary Nonferrous Metals NESHAP and because it was historically 
included in the ferroalloys production source category, we are 
proposing to include silicon metal production sources in the 
ferroalloys production source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Barbara Driscoll, EPA, to Urban Strategy 
Docket. Expanded Description of Source Categories Listed in June 
2002 for Future Regulatory Development. November 18, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, calcium carbide producers report to SIC code 2819, 
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified, which 
includes calcium carbide manufacturing. These data also formed the 
basis for the section 112(k) inventory and included several HAP metals: 
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. An 
area source NESHAP for various operations in this source category is 
currently under development, but most of the sources in the category 
are defined by SIC 2819, which covers more traditional chemical 
industry production operations. Calcium carbide production uses 
virtually the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was 
included in the NSPS. Because of the similarities between calcium 
carbide production and ferroalloys production, we are proposing to 
address calcium carbide production in this proposed rule, as opposed to 
the inorganic chemicals area source NESHAP.

IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements

A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?

    The proposed subpart YYYYYY standards would apply to each existing 
or new electrometallurgical operation located at an area source that 
produces silicon metal, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium using the aluminum 
reduction process, ferrovanadium, ferromolybdenum, calcium silicon, 
silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-
carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, 
silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, calcium carbide or other 
ferroalloy products. These proposed standards do not apply to research 
and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule 
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 
180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. We believe that 180 days would provide sufficient time for 
existing sources to comply with the requirements of the final rule. To 
our knowledge, there is no existing facility that would be required to 
install or modify emission control equipment to meet the requirements 
of the final rule. New sources would be required to comply with these 
rule requirements upon the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.

C. What are the proposed standards?

1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emissions Limit
    These proposed standards establish a limit, as measured by Method 
22, on the duration of visible emissions (VE) from the control 
device(s) on the electrometallurgical operations. The Method 22 test is 
designed to measure the amount of time that any VE are observed during 
an observation period. The owner or operator must demonstrate that the 
control device outlet emissions do not exceed 3 percent of accumulated 
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period. We refer to this as the 
3 percent limit throughout this document.
2. Furnace Building Opacity Limit
    These proposed standards establish a limit for fugitive emissions, 
as determined by Method 9, from the furnace building due solely to 
electrometallurgical operations. The owner or operator must demonstrate 
that the furnace building emissions do not exhibit opacity greater than 
20 percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour 
that does not exceed 40 percent during the 1-hour observation period. 
The observation period must include product tapping.

D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?

1. Electrometallurgical Operations VE Limit
    For each control device on an electrometallurgical operation, the 
owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial Method 22 
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) VE test for at least 60 minutes. A 
semiannual Method 22 test is required thereafter. In the case of a 
fabric filter control device, emissions would be observed at the 
monovent or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For ferroalloy facilities 
using wet scrubbers for PM control, the observations would be conducted 
at the scrubber outlet stack. For example, scrubber outlet emissions 
may be directed to a flare or to another combustion source such as a 
dryer. In this case the outlet of the downstream device or process 
would be observed.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    In order to demonstrate compliance with the furnace building 
opacity requirements, the owner or operator would be required to 
conduct an initial 60-minute (ten 6-minute averages) opacity test for 
fugitive emissions from the furnace building according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) (subpart A of the 40 CFR part 63 General 
Provisions) and Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60. The owner 
or operator would then conduct a follow up Method 9 test every 6 
months.
    In order to provide flexibility to sources and reduce the costs of 
demonstrating compliance, we are proposing to allow sources to monitor 
visible emissions using a Method 22 test in place of the semiannual 
Method 9 test. The Method 22 test is successful if no visible emissions 
are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace cycle (tap 
to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed greater 
than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 minutes, 
whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9 
performance test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar 
days after the Method 22 test.

E. What are the monitoring requirements?

    For existing ferroalloy facilities, the owner or operator would be 
required to conduct and record daily visual inspection of the control 
device outlet. In the case of a fabric filter, the source would observe 
the monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE. In the case 
of a wet scrubber, the source would observe the scrubber outlet stack. 
Should any of the daily observations reveal any visible emissions, the 
owner or operator must conduct a Method 22 test as described earlier 
within 24 hours.
    The owner or operator of a new electrometallurgical operation 
equipped with a new fabric filter would be required to install and 
operate a bag leak detection system and prepare a site-specific 
monitoring plan instead of

[[Page 53168]]

complying with the daily visual inspection requirements for existing 
sources. In addition, existing sources would have the option of 
complying with the bag leak detection system requirements as an 
alternative to the daily visual inspections.
    In case of bag leak detection system alarm, the source would be 
required to conduct a visual inspection within 1 hour. If the visual 
monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, the source would be required 
to conduct a Method 22 test within 24 hours of determining the presence 
of any VE.
    The owner or operator of a new sealed EAF equipped with a wet 
scrubber\2\ would be required to install, operate and maintain a 
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the 
3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate instead of 
complying with the daily visual inspection requirements. Existing 
sources would have the option of conducting CPMS monitoring in place of 
the daily visual inspection requirements, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The exhaust gases from the sealed EAF can be captured using 
lower airflows than from an open EAF, but the temperature is higher, 
precluding the use of fabric filters. Such sources use wet scrubbers 
as the primary emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When operating a CPMS, if the 3-hour average pressure drop or 
scrubber water flow rate is below the minimum levels that indicate 
normal operation of the control device, the source would be required to 
conduct visual monitoring of the outlet stack(s) within 1 hour. 
Manufacturer's specifications will be used to provide the values for 
normal operation. If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any 
VE, the source would be required to conduct a Method 22 test within 24 
hours of determining the presence of any VE.

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    The affected new and existing sources would be required to comply 
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). 
Each facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The owner or operator would be 
required to submit the Initial Notification within 120 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or 
operator would be required to submit a Notification of Compliance 
Status within 90 days after the applicable compliance date to 
demonstrate initial compliance with these proposed standards.
    In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, owners and 
operators would also be required to maintain records of all monitoring 
data including:
    <bullet> Date, place, and time of the monitoring event
    <bullet> Person conducting the monitoring
    <bullet> Technique or method used
    <bullet> Operating conditions during the activity
    <bullet> Results, including the date, time, and duration of the 
period from the time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time 
that monitoring indicated proper operation.

V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    As described in section II.B, we listed the ferroalloys production 
source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 
70427). The inclusion of this source category on the area source 
category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, 
which represents 1990 urban air information. Ferroalloys production was 
listed for its contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement 
of chromium compounds, manganese compounds, and nickel compounds.
    For this source category, we solicited information on the 
production operations, emission sources, and available controls for 
both area and major sources using written facility surveys, reviews of 
published literature, information gathered during the major source 
NESHAP, and reviews of operating permits. We also held discussions with 
industry representatives, State permitting organizations, and EPA 
experts. This research confirmed that the ferroalloys production source 
category emits the above-noted urban HAP, although we found that 
current emissions of such HAP are lower than the amounts estimated in 
the section 112(k) inventory.

B. How did we select the affected source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. In 
selecting the affected source for regulation, we identified the 
ferroalloys production metal HAP emitting operations and the quantity 
of metal HAP emissions from the individual or groups of emissions 
points. We concluded that designating the electrometallurgical 
operation (including EAF or other reactions vessels such as crucibles) 
as the affected source was the most appropriate approach and consistent 
with existing ferroalloys regulations (i.e., the major source NESHAP 
and the NSPS). This proposed rule includes requirements for the control 
of primary, tapping, and fugitive emissions from electrometallurgical 
operations.

C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in this 
proposed rule?

    For this proposed rule, we have selected PM as a surrogate for 
ferroalloys production metal HAP. We decided that it was not practical 
to establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic 
HAP that could be present in the emissions (e.g., separate standards 
for manganese emissions, chromium emissions, and nickel emissions) 
because the types and quantities of metal HAP can vary widely in the 
raw materials. Further, and more significantly, when released, each of 
the metallic HAP compounds behaves as PM. The control technologies used 
for the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of 
performance for these metallic HAP emissions, i.e., when PM is 
captured, HAP metals are captured nonpreferentially as part of the PM. 
Therefore, emission standards requiring control of PM will also achieve 
comparable control of metallic HAP emissions.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT for the ferroalloys production source HAP emissions. 
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the statute allows the 
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that 
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA 
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    Moreover, all of the facilities in this source category have good 
operational controls in place. We evaluated the control technologies 
that are generally available for the ferroalloys production area source 
category. We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining 
GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is 
especially important for the

[[Page 53169]]

well-controlled ferroalloys production area sources because, given 
current well-controlled levels, requiring additional controls would 
result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for 
modest incremental improvement in control for this area source 
category. We explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emission Limit
    All of the known area source electrometallurgical operations are 
equipped with either fabric filters or wet scrubbers to control PM 
emissions. Major source ferroalloy producers also utilize similar PM 
controls on EAF. Most of these control devices and their associated 
furnaces or other reaction vessels have been in operation for many 
years and are custom-designed and -built. In addition, the majority of 
EAF in this industry are controlled with large, positive pressure 
fabric filters because of the large volume of air that is used to 
capture the primary (and typically tapping emissions) from the open 
furnaces that are the predominate EAF-type in the U.S. In other cases, 
negative pressure fabric filters are used to control PM emissions from 
the smaller specialty ferroalloy operations and/or tapping emissions, 
because lower airflow rates are needed to capture these emissions. One 
existing facility that has a sealed EAF uses a scrubber as the primary 
means of emission control. We reviewed the existing permit limits to 
evaluate whether the control devices exhibit a similar level of control 
and determined that they do. (See technical memorandum in the docket 
for more details on EAF permit requirements and estimated PM 
emissions).
    Based on the existing operating permit requirements for EAF at 
ferroalloys production facilities, we found a variety of formats and 
units, e.g., percent opacity, allowable PM or PM<INF>10</INF> emission 
rates (pounds per hour, tpy, or pound per megawatt-hour), and outlet 
concentrations (grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). However, 
as discussed below, there are technical, cost, and implementation 
issues associated with demonstrating compliance with a PM numerical 
emission limit such that it does not constitute GACT for this source 
category.
    A traditional approach to demonstrating compliance with a numerical 
emissions limit is to conduct a PM emissions performance test and then 
monitor parameters of the control device that indicate whether the 
control device is operating at least as well as it was during the test. 
This approach is particularly effective if there are conditions that 
can produce variable outlet emissions levels. However, fabric filters 
that are commonly used at ferroalloy production operations are 
essentially constant concentration devices. This means that fabric 
filters are very effective (i.e., 99 percent or more), at removing PM 
of all particle sizes when properly designed and operated. The 
variability of the uncontrolled pollutant loading has very little 
effect on the concentration of PM in the exhaust of the device (see 
document at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff-pulse.pdf). 
Based on an evaluation of existing permit limits in this industry, we 
believe that a fabric filter control device would need to achieve an 
outlet concentration of less than 0.01 gr/dscf to ensure that the 
control device is well operated and maintained.
    We have concerns about the economic effect of PM emissions testing 
for smaller facilities. The typical EPA Method 5 PM emissions test on a 
stack costs between $3,000 and $10,000. A positive pressure fabric 
filter device typical of those used at the bulk ferroalloys producers 
does not have a stack of the type for which Method 5 is designed. 
Instead, these control devices emit essentially straight from the bags 
to the atmosphere through multiple stub stacks or a long roof vent. 
Conducting representative emissions testing on such devices requires a 
modified approach, which we have described in EPA Method 5D. The cost 
of conducting a test with Method 5D is driven by the design and size of 
the fabric filter outlet. Method 5D tests on fabric filters will cost 
from 3 to 10 times more than a Method 5 test on a stack. The $10,000 to 
over $40,000 cost per test per control device become a significant 
economic burden for these area sources.
    Given these control device characteristics, we considered whether 
an opacity or VE standard would be GACT for this industry. There is a 
correlation between PM concentration and opacity in the fabric filter 
outlet stream, and studies have shown that particulate concentrations 
are approximately zero at an opacity of zero.\3\ For example, a test at 
a wet cement kiln with a fabric filter showed that when outlet 
concentrations were less than 0.009 gr/dscf, opacity was less than 2 
percent. This opacity is low enough that it would probably be observed 
as zero under most conditions. This in turn would result in a very low 
incidence of VE during any observation period. A search of permits 
found several examples of venturi scrubbers also being subject to zero 
VE tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied to Portland 
Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp. 
3-1, 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose a very low (e.g., 3 percent accumulation of 
VE during the observation period) VE limit as GACT. As described above, 
data support a conclusion that a 3 percent accumulation or less VE 
limit will provide assurance that the control device is properly 
designed and operated. Further, the cost of VE testing (less than $125 
for Method 22) is significantly less than the cost of PM emissions 
testing. It is also less than the cost of conducting a Method 9 test 
(approximately $2,000 for a contractor to conduct the test), which is 
why we did not select an opacity limit as GACT. A rule that specifies a 
very low VE limit can afford to include more frequent testing than one 
that has a PM emissions limit that may require only an initial test or 
at best a test only every several years.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    In addition to control requirements, maintaining capture efficiency 
is also important in determining GACT. All of the ferroalloys 
production electrometallurgical operations are equipped with capture 
systems. We lack empirical data on their actual performance; however, 
there is precedent for establishing a VE limit from the EAF (NSPS) or 
furnace building (major source NESHAP, 20 percent opacity) as a 
surrogate for performance of the capture systems. Establishing a 20 
percent opacity limit is common in State regulations (including 
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia) that address 
foundries, smelters, EAF, and other combustion sources. For example, 
Michigan rule 336.1358 for roof monitor VE at steel manufacturing 
facilities from electric arc furnaces and blast furnaces states:

    Rule 358. (1) A person shall not cause or permit to be 
discharged to the outer air, at a steel manufacturing facility, from 
a roof monitor source of emission of an electric arc furnace, or a 
blast furnace, a visible emission with a density of more than 20% 
opacity.

Therefore, we have determined that a 20 percent furnace building (e.g., 
shop) limit is GACT for this source category.
    Existing permits and regulations also tend to provide an upper 
bound opacity limit to account for variation in building operations 
that could result in fugitive emissions during the Method 9 observation 
period. These upper limits range from 27 percent (Michigan

[[Page 53170]]

permits for similar sources (foundries)) to 60 percent (major source 
ferroalloys NESHAP, see 40 CFR 63.1653(a)). The existing title V permit 
for a ferrosilicon producer allows a single 6-minute average not to 
exceed 40 percent during the Method 9 observation period. For this 
proposed area source rule, we propose to establish an upper limit 
opacity of 40 percent, limited to a single 6-minute average opacity 
determination.
    In addition to establishing an upper limit, we considered whether 
upset or malfunction conditions such as blowing taps, poling, and 
oxygen lancing of the tap hole should be excluded from the observation 
period. For example, blowing taps are a malfunction and occur when the 
pressure in the furnace is not balanced. Similarly, both oxygen lancing 
and poling are considered to be ``failures of the process to operate in 
a normal or usual manner'', as described in the March 1976 EPA document 
``Supplemental Information on Standards of Performance or Ferroalloy 
Production Facilities''. We determined that the General Provisions 
requirements (40 CFR 63.6(e)) to develop and operate according to a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would adequately address these 
and other types of malfunctions that might occur during the VE 
observation period. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to 
provide such exclusions in this proposed rule.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and 
recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed 
rule. These provisions are based, in part, on requirements that have 
been applied to several industries in other rulemakings and an 
understanding of how control devices perform and can be effectively 
monitored. In selecting these requirements, we identified the 
information necessary to ensure emissions controls are maintained and 
operated properly on a continuing basis. We also evaluated more 
enhanced monitoring requirements, such as the use of bag leak detection 
systems, which were required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX for new 
sources. We believe the proposed requirements will assure compliance 
without posing a significant additional burden for facilities that must 
implement them.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Equipment Standards
    We are proposing that compliance with the VE limit would be 
established through an initial and then semiannual observation of VE 
using EPA Method 22. Method 22 results record the accumulation of time 
that any VE is observed. We are proposing a 60-minute observation 
period to ensure that observations occur during representative 
conditions. We are seeking comment on whether a different observation 
period might be appropriate.
    Monitoring would consist of a daily VE observation. As described 
above, properly operated and maintained fabric filters and scrubbers 
should normally operate with no VE at the outlet. If any VE are 
observed, a possible problem is indicated and a Method 22 test must be 
conducted within 24 hours. If the Method 22 test shows that the control 
device emissions are above the 3 percent limit, the source would be 
required to report an exceedance. This compliance format will encourage 
sources to correct control device operational problems as soon as 
possible.
    For new sources equipped with fabric filters, we are proposing use 
of bag leak detection systems for monitoring. Bag leak detection 
systems are typical requirements for new sources (e.g., new sources 
subject to the major source NESHAP are required to install them) and 
represent state-of-the art continuous compliance by providing early 
notice of leaking bags. These systems can be incorporated into the 
design and operation for new sources and would not require retrofitting 
or duplicative monitoring as would be the case if they were applied to 
existing sources. Existing sources also might opt to install bag leak 
detection systems to monitor performance. Sources using bag leak 
detection systems would not be subject to the daily VE requirements. 
Instead, a system alarm would trigger a VE observation within 1 hour. 
If any VE are observed, the source would be required to conduct a 
Method 22 test within 24 hours. Sources desiring to install a PM 
emissions monitoring system (e.g., PM continuous emissions monitoring 
system) or other monitoring method can request the Administrator's 
approval of such a plan on a case-by-case basis under the authority of 
the part 63 General Provisions (Sec.  63.8(f)(4)(i)).
    We are proposing that new sealed EAF sources with wet scrubbers 
install, maintain and operate a CPMS to monitor pressure drop and 
scrubber liquid flow rate. These systems represent state-of-the-art 
continuous compliance and can be designed into the unit at 
installation. Existing sources would be allowed to adopt CPMS as well. 
Similar to bag leak detection system monitoring, the CPMS would be used 
to provide an indication that the wet scrubber is operating properly 
instead of a required daily check of VE. We are proposing that if the 
3-hour average pressure drop or scrubber water flow rate is below the 
minimum levels that indicate normal operation of the control device, 
the source would be required to conduct visual monitoring of the outlet 
stack(s) within 1 hour. Manufacturer's specifications will be used to 
provide the values for normal operation. If the visual monitoring 
reveals the presence of any VE, the source must conduct a Method 22 
test within 24 hours.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    Compliance with an opacity limit for fugitive emissions is commonly 
demonstrated using a Method 9 test. Therefore, we are proposing that 
initial compliance must be demonstrated using a certified Method 9 
observer to perform this test. We recognize that not all facilities 
have a certified observer on staff, and we are proposing that sources 
would have the option of monitoring VE using Method 22 for the 
subsequent semi-annual compliance demonstration. The test is successful 
if no VE are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace 
cycle (tap to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed 
greater than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 
minutes, whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9 
test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the 
Method 22 test.
    We are proposing this compliance alternative because we are trying 
to reduce the potential compliance burden on sources. To the extent 
that sources have certified Method 9 observers already on staff for 
other reasons, they might choose to continue to demonstrate semiannual 
compliance with Method 9 observation. Other sources might choose to 
hire a contractor to conduct both the initial Method 9 and the 
subsequent observations rather than devote in-house resources. However, 
we have assumed that some sources would choose to hire a contractor to 
do the initial compliance observation, but might want to conduct the 
semiannual observations using in-house staff if they could avoid the 
cost of keeping a certified Method 9 reader on staff. The Method 22 
alternative allows the use of this potentially more economical test, 
but a Method 9 test would be required in the event that the VE observed 
using Method 22 exceed 10 percent of the time in the observation 
period.

[[Page 53171]]

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V 
permitting requirements?

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for 
affected facilities in the ferroalloys production area source category 
for the reasons described below.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title 
V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public 
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemption from title V would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our 
rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for 
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first 
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP 
for the ferroalloys production area source category. Title V requires 
periodic monitoring to ensure compliance. This proposed standard would 
provide for monitoring in the form of VE observations and opacity 
testing that would assure compliance with the requirements of this 
proposed rule. This proposed NESHAP would also require the preparation 
of an annual compliance certification report and submission of this 
report if there are any deviations during the year, which will identify 
for the agency implementing this rule those facilities with compliance 
issues, in the same way as a title V permit. Records would be required 
to ensure that the compliance requirements are followed and any needed 
corrective actions are taken, including such records as results of the 
visual emissions and opacity tests and the resulting corrective actions 
such as replacing a torn fabric filter bag. Therefore, this proposed 
rule contains monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with the 
requirements of this proposed rule.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could potentially 
enhance compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule 
through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the 
various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including 
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an 
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected 
ferroalloys production facility, this proposed NESHAP would require an 
initial notification and an initial and annual notification of 
compliance status. This proposed NESHAP would further require affected 
facilities to maintain records showing compliance with the required 
standards and compliance requirements. This proposed NESHAP also would 
require sources to comply with the requirements in the part 63 General 
Provision for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, reports, and 
records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3); see Table 1 of this proposed rule. When a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be submitted, it must 
consist of a letter containing the name, title, and signature of the 
owner or operator or other responsible official who is certifying its 
accuracy. The information that would be required in the notifications, 
reports, and records is similar to the information that would be 
provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    We believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the requirements of this proposed rule. Therefore, we conclude 
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements we are proposing for this area source category.
    For the second factor, we must determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA has 
estimated that the average annual cost of obtaining and complying with 
a title V permit is $9,500 per source.\4\ See Information Collection 
Request (ICR) for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, April 2007, EPA 
ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have specific estimates for the 
burdens and costs of permitting the

[[Page 53172]]

ferroalloys production area sources; however, there are certain 
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities 
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading 
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining 
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up 
questions from permitting authorities after the application is 
submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; 
preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more 
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as 
defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, 
verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, 
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; 
preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 
needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In 
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources 
obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand 
and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 
provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as 
well as the relative burdens of each activity. Also, for a more 
comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, 
burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, 
and 70.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This value is higher than the permitting cost estimate 
discussed in other recent area source proposal packages because it 
is based on an updated analysis of the reporting burden. However, 
this value is based on an understanding that most of the title V 
permits that are currently in development are renewals. A new title 
V permit would likely have a higher average cost of development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing the second factor for the three existing ferroalloys 
production facilities that do not currently have title V permits (two 
of whom are small businesses), we examined the potential cost 
implications for the source category. At a cost of $9,500 per facility 
to obtain and maintain a title V permit, the cost of permits would 
exceed the estimated total annualized cost of complying with the 
standards (approximately $6,100 per facility). Thus, we believe that 
the second factor supports the proposed title V exemption for 
ferroalloys production facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor 
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant 
burden on the sources that would be required to obtain a title V 
permit. We also believe in considering the first factor that, while 
title V might impose additional requirements, the monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed NESHAP would 
assure compliance with the standards imposed in the NESHAP. In 
addition, in our consideration of the fourth factor discussed below, we 
find that there are adequate implementation and enforcement programs in 
place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. Because the costs of 
compliance with title V are so high, and the potential for gains in 
compliance is low, we propose that title V permitting is not justified 
for this source category. Accordingly, the third factor supports the 
proposed title V exemption for ferroalloys production area sources.
    The fourth factor we considered in determining if title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome is whether there are implementation and 
enforcement programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the NESHAP without relying on title V permits. Seven of the 10 
existing facilities already have title V permits because of their 
criteria pollutant emissions (primarily sulfur dioxide). These sources 
would continue to maintain their title V permits, which would be 
modified to include the NESHAP requirements, once it is promulgated. 
For those three sources that currently lack title V permits, all have 
State construction and/or operating permits that already require 
controls and compliance assurance similar to this NESHAP. We also note 
that EPA retains authority to enforce this NESHAP anytime under CAA 
sections 112, 113 and 114. We further note that small business 
assistance programs required by CAA section 507 may be used to assist 
area sources that have been exempted from title V permitting. Also, 
States and EPA often conduct voluntary compliance assistance, outreach, 
and education programs (compliance assistance programs), which are not 
required by statute. These additional programs would supplement and 
enhance the success of compliance with this area source NESHAP. We 
believe that the statutory requirements for implementation and 
enforcement of this NESHAP by the delegated States and EPA, combined 
with the additional assistance programs, would be sufficient to assure 
compliance with this area source NESHAP without relying on title V 
permitting.
    In applying the fourth factor in the Exemption Rule, where EPA had 
deferred action on the title V exemption for several years, we had 
enforcement data available to demonstrate that States were not only 
enforcing the provisions of the area source NESHAP that we exempted, 
but that the States were also providing compliance assistance to assure 
that the area sources were in the best position to comply with the 
NESHAP. See 70 FR 75325-75326. In proposing this rule, we do not have 
similar data available on the specific enforcement as in the Exemption 
Rule, but we have no reason to think that States will be less diligent 
in enforcing this NESHAP. See 70 FR 75326. In fact, States must have 
adequate programs to enforce the section 112 regulations and provide 
assurances that they will enforce all NESHAP before EPA will delegate 
the program. See 40 CFR part 63, General Provisions, subpart E.
    In light of all the information presented here, we believe that 
there are implementation and enforcement programs in place that are 
sufficient to assure compliance with the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 
without relying on title V permitting. Balancing the four factors for 
this area source category strongly supports the proposed finding that 
title V is unnecessarily burdensome. While title V might add additional 
compliance requirements if imposed, we believe that there would not be 
significant improvements to the compliance requirements in the NESHAP 
because the requirements in this proposed rule are specifically 
designed to assure compliance with the emission standards established 
in the rule.
    We further maintain that the potential economic costs of compliance 
with title V would impose a significant burden on the sources that 
would be newly required to obtain title V permits. In addition, these 
high relative costs would not be justified given that there is likely 
to be little or no potential gain in compliance if title V were 
required. And, finally, there are adequate implementation and 
enforcement programs in place to assure compliance with the NESHAP. 
Thus, we propose that title V permitting is ``unnecessarily 
burdensome'' for the ferroalloys production area source category.
    In addition to evaluating whether compliance with title V 
requirements is ``unnecessarily burdensome,'' EPA also considered, 
consistent with guidance provided by the legislative history of section 
502(a), whether exempting the ferroalloy production area source 
category from title V requirements would adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment. Exemption of the ferroalloys 
production area source category from title V requirements would not 
adversely affect public health, welfare, or the environment because the 
level of control would remain the same if a permit were required. The 
title V permit program

[[Page 53173]]

does not impose new substantive air quality control requirements on 
sources, but instead requires that certain procedural measures be 
followed, particularly with respect to determining compliance with 
applicable requirements. As stated in our consideration of factor one 
for this category, title V would not lead to significant improvements 
in the compliance requirements applicable to existing or new area 
sources.
    Furthermore, one of the primary purposes of the title V permitting 
program is to clarify, in a single document, the various and sometimes 
complex regulations that apply to sources in order to improve 
understanding of these requirements and to help sources achieve 
compliance with the requirements. In this case, however, we do not 
believe that a title V permit is necessary to understand the 
requirements applicable to these area sources. We also have no reason 
to think that new sources would be substantially different from the 
existing sources. Finally, 7 of the 10 existing sources already have 
title V permits and any incremental environmental benefit would only 
result from imposing title V requirements on the remaining sources, 
which are already covered by State construction and/or operating 
permits. Based on this analysis, we believe that title V exemptions for 
ferroalloys production area sources would not adversely affect public 
health, welfare, or the environment for all of the reasons previously 
explained.
    For the reasons stated here, we are proposing to exempt the 
ferroalloys production area source categories from title V permitting 
requirements.

VI. Summary of Impacts of These Proposed Standards

    Affected sources are well-controlled and our proposed GACT 
determination reflects such controls. Compared to the early 1990s when 
we evaluated this industry as part of the development of the major 
source rule, we believe that sources have improved their level of 
control and reduced emissions due to State permitting requirements or 
actions taken to improve efficiency and/or reduce costs. For example, 
sources have reported improved capture of tapping emissions, improved 
process controls that minimize upset conditions, and improvements in 
fabric filter technology such as installation of Goretex[supreg] bags. 
We estimate that the only impact associated with this proposed rule is 
the compliance requirements (monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and 
testing) which is estimated to be approximately $6,100 per facility.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been 
assigned EPA ICR number 2303.01.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule 
are based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
in the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the 
CAA (42 U.S.C 7414). All information other than emissions data 
submitted to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements 
for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according 
to CAA section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 
CFR part 2, subpart B.
    This proposed NESHAP would require ferroalloys production area 
sources to submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of 
Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the 
General Provisions (subpart A). Records would be required to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity and VE requirements. The owner 
or operator of a ferroalloys production facility also is subject to 
notification and recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of 
the General Provisions (subpart A), although we are proposing that 
annual compliance reports are sufficient instead of semiannual reports.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first three years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 819 labor 
hours per year at a labor cost of $61,122 or approximately $6,100 per 
facility. The average annual reporting burden is 26 hours per response, 
with approximately 3 responses per facility for 10 respondents. There 
are no capital and operating and maintenance costs associated with the 
proposed rule requirements for existing sources. Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy 
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, EPA has established a public docket for 
this proposed rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154]. Submit any comments related to the ICR to EPA 
and OMB. See ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposed rule 
for where to submit comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for 
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after September 15, 2008, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 
15, 2008. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The 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 this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 employees for NAICS 
331112 and 331419 and less than 1,000 employees for NAICS 325188); (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 this proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on

[[Page 53174]]

a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule is estimated 
to impact 10 area source ferroalloys production facilities that are 
currently operating. We estimate that five of these facilities may be 
small entities. We have determined that small entity compliance costs, 
as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, are expected to be 
less than 0.02 percent. The costs are so small that the impact is not 
expected to be significant. Although this proposed rule contains 
requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new area 
sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and 
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The 
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout 
the ferroalloys production industry. The standards also require only 
the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and 
verify compliance. These standards were developed based on information 
obtained from small businesses in our surveys, consultation with small 
business representatives on the State and national level, and industry 
representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed action on small entities and welcome comments on issues 
related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. The average cost per facility to comply with this proposed rule's 
monitoring and compliance requirements is approximately $6,100 for the 
10 existing facilities. This proposed action is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of 
section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This proposed 
rule contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes 
no obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them 
of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts 
on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule does not 
impose any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    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

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 
This proposed rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed action from tribal 
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 F.R. 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based 
solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. Therefore, 
the Agency conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS. 
However, we identified no such standards, and none were brought to our 
attention in comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 9 
and 22 in this proposed rule.
    EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking 
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially-
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this 
regulation.
    Under Sec.  63.7(f) and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority

[[Page 53175]]

populations and low-income populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the 
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule will establish national standards 
for the ferroalloys production area source category.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
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 A--[Amended]

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYYY to read as follows:
Subpart YYYYYY--Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under 
Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards 
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production 
Facilities

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11524 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11525 What are my compliance dates?

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements

63.11526 What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys 
production facilities?
63.11527 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing 
sources?
63.11528 What are the performance test and compliance requirements 
for new and existing sources?
63.11529 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11530 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11531 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11532 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11533-63.11543 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63--
Applicability of General Provisions

Subpart YYYYYY--Revision of Source Category List for Standards 
Under Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission 
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: 
Ferroalloys Production Facilities

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11524  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
ferroalloys production facility that is an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions. A ferroalloys production facility 
manufactures silicon metal, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium using the 
aluminum reduction process, ferrovanadium, ferromolybdenum, calcium 
silicon, silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, 
high-carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, 
silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, calcium carbide or other 
ferroalloy products using electrometallurgical operations including 
electric arc furnaces (EAFs) or other reaction vessels.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each existing and new 
electrometallurgical operation affected source as defined in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is existing 
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF or other 
reaction vessel on or before September 15, 2008.
    (2) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is new if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF other reaction 
vessel after September 15, 2008.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory 
facilities as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3. 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11525  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no 
later than 180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register.
    (b) If you start up a new affected source on or before the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve 
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later 
than the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
    (c) If you start up a new affected source after the date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, you must achieve 
compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart upon startup 
of your affected source.

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11526  What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys 
production facilities?

    (a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere visible emissions (VE) 
from the control device that exceed 3 percent of accumulated 
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period.
    (b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive PM emissions 
from the furnace building containing the electrometallurgical 
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute 
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 
40 percent.


Sec.  63.11527  What are the monitoring requirements for new and 
existing sources?

    (a) EAF Equipped with Fabric Filters.
    (1) You must conduct daily visual monitoring of the monovent or 
fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE.
    (2) If the daily visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, 
you must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
following the requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of 
determining the presence of any VE.
    (3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may 
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each 
fabric filter as an alternative to the monitoring requirements in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If you own or operate a new affected 
source, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection 
system for each fabric filter according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(vii) of this section. Such source 
is not subject

[[Page 53176]]

to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (i) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of PM at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 
actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings and the owner or operator shall continuously 
record the output from the bag leak detection system using a strip 
chart recorder, data logger, or other means.
    (iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound 
when an increase in relative PM loadings is detected over the alarm set 
point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the alarm 
must be located such that it can be heard by the appropriate plant 
personnel.
    (iv) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist 
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity 
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and establishing the 
alarm set points. If the system is equipped with an alarm delay time 
feature, you also must adjust the alarm delay time.
    (v) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time, 
except that, once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the 
bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects including 
temperature and humidity.
    (vi) For fabric filters that are discharged to the atmosphere 
through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed 
downstream of the fabric filter and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (4) When operating a bag leak detection system, if an alarm sounds, 
conduct visual monitoring of the monovent or fabric filter outlet 
stack(s) as required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 1 hour. 
If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you must 
conduct a Method 22 test following the requirements of Sec.  
63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of determining the presence of any VE.
    (5) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain each bag leak 
detection system according to the plan at all times. Each plan must 
address all of the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 
(a)(5)(v) of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established.
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (iv) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a 
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (b) EAF Equipped with Wet Scrubbers.
    (1) You must conduct daily visual monitoring of the wet scrubber 
outlet stack(s) for any VE.
    (2) If the daily visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, 
you must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
following the requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of 
determining the presence of any VE.
    (3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may 
install, operate and maintain a continuous parameter monitoring system 
(CPMS) to measure and record the 3-hour average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate as an alternative to the monitoring 
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you own 
or operate a new sealed EAF affected source, you must install, operate, 
and maintain a CPMS for each wet scrubber. Such source is not subject 
to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (4) When operating a CPMS, if the 3-hour average pressure drop or 
scrubber water flow rate is below the minimum levels that indicate 
normal operation of the control device, conduct visual monitoring of 
the outlet stack(s) as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
within 1 hour. Manufacturer's specifications for pressure drop and 
liquid flow rate will be used to determine normal operations. If the 
visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you must conduct a 
Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test following the 
requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of determining the 
presence of any VE.


Sec.  63.11528  What are the performance test and compliance 
requirements for new and existing sources?

    (a) Initial Compliance Demonstration Deadlines. You must conduct an 
initial Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test following the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section of each existing 
electrometallurgical operation control device and an initial Method 9 
observation following the requirements of paragraph(c)(1) of this 
section from the furnace building due to electrometallurgical 
operations no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date. 
For any new electrometallurgical operation control device, you must 
conduct an initial Method 22 test following the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 15 days of startup of the 
control device.
    (b) Visible Emissions Limit Compliance Demonstration.
    (1) You must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) 
test to determine that VE from the control device do not exceed the 
emission standard specified in Sec.  63.11526(a). For a fabric filter, 
conduct the test for at least 60 minutes at the fabric filter monovent 
or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For a wet scrubber, conduct the test 
for at least 60 minutes at the outlet stack(s).
    (2) You must conduct a semiannual Method 22 test using the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) Furnace Building Opacity.
    (1) You must conduct an opacity test for fugitive emissions from 
the furnace building according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) and 
Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60). The test must be conducted 
for at least 60 minutes and shall include tapping the furnace or 
reaction vessel. The observation must be focused on the part of the 
building where electrometallurgical operation fugitive emissions are 
most likely to be observed.
    (2) Conduct subsequent Method 9 tests no less frequently than every 
6 months and each time you make a process change likely to increase 
fugitive emissions.
    (3) As an alternative to the Method 9 performance test, you may 
monitor VE using Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) for 
subsequent semi-annual compliance demonstrations. The Method 22 test is 
successful if no VE are observed for 90 percent of the readings over 
the furnace cycle (tap to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE 
are observed greater than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle 
or 60 minutes, whichever is more, then the facility must conduct 
another test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days 
after the Method 22 test using Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 
60) as specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

[[Page 53177]]

Sec.  63.11529  What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

    (a) Initial Notification. You must submit the Initial Notification 
required by Sec.  63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions no later than 
120 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. The Initial Notification must include the information 
specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iv).
    (b) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h) of 
the General Provisions before the close of business on the 30th day 
following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. This 
notification must include the following:
    (1) The results of Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
for VE as required by Sec.  63.11528(a);
    (2) If you have installed a bag leak detection system, 
documentation that the system satisfies the design requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.11527(a)(3) and that you have prepared a site-
specific monitoring plan that meets the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.11527(a)(5);
    (3) The results of the Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60) 
test for building opacity as required by Sec.  63.11528(a).
    (c) Annual Compliance Certification. If you own or operate an 
affected source, you must submit an annual certification of compliance 
according to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
    (1) The results of any daily visual monitoring events required by 
Sec.  63.11527 (a)(1) and (b)(1), alarm-based visual monitoring at 
sources equipped with bag leak detection systems as required by Sec.  
63.11527 (a)(4), or readings outside of the operating range at sources 
using CPMS on wet scrubbers required by Sec.  63.11527 (b)(4).
    (2) The results of the follow up Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR 
part 60) tests that are required if VE are observed during the daily 
visual monitoring, alarm-based visual monitoring, or out-of-range 
operating readings as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (3) The results of the Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) 
or Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60) tests required by Sec.  
63.11528(b) and (c), respectively.
    (4) If you operate a bag leak detection system for a fabric filter 
or a CPMS for a wet scrubber, submit annual reports according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.10(e) and include summary information on the 
number, duration, and cause (including unknown cause, if applicable) 
for monitor downtime incidents (other than downtime associated with 
zero and span or other calibration checks, if applicable).
    (d) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (d)(1) 
through (d)(2) of this section.
    (1) As required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv), you must keep a copy of 
each notification that you submitted to comply with this subpart and 
all documentation supporting any Initial Notification, Notification of 
Compliance Status, and annual compliance certifications that you 
submitted.
    (2) You must keep the records of all daily visual, Method 22 
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60), and Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR 
part 60) monitoring data required by Sec.  63.11527 and the information 
identified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through (d)(2)(v).
    (i) The date, place, and time of the monitoring event;
    (ii) Person conducting the monitoring;
    (iii) Technique or method used;
    (iv) Operating conditions during the activity; and
    (v) Results, including the date, time, and duration of the period 
from the time the monitoring indicated a problem (e.g., VE) to the time 
that monitoring indicated proper operation.
    (e) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (f) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each recorded action.
    (g) You must keep each record onsite for at least 2 years after the 
date of each recorded action according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You may 
keep the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.11530  What parts of the General Provisions apply to my 
facility?

    Table 1 of this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.16 apply to you.


Sec.  63.11531  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by EPA or a 
delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If the 
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if implementation and enforcement of this subpart is delegated 
to your State, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section 
are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred to the 
State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of an alternative nonopacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under 
Sec.  63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in 
Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of a major change to monitoring under Sec.  63.8(f). A 
``major change to monitoring'' under is defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping and reporting under 
Sec.  63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is 
defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.11532  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the CAA, in Sec.  63.2, 
and in this section.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring relative PM (i.e., dust) loadings in the 
exhaust of a fabric filter to detect bag leaks and other upset 
conditions. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not limited 
to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, electrodynamic, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other effect to continuously 
monitor relative PM loadings.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
gases and fumes released from one or more emissions points and then 
convey the captured gas stream to a control device or to the 
atmosphere. A capture system may include, but is not limited to, the 
following components as applicable to a given capture system design: 
duct intake devices, hoods, enclosures, ductwork, dampers, manifolds, 
plenums, and fans.
    Charging means introducing materials to an EAF or other reaction 
vessel, which may consist of, but are not limited to, ores, slag, 
carbonaceous material, and/or limestone.
    Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to 
remove PM from the effluent gas stream generated by an EAF furnace or 
other reaction vessel.

[[Page 53178]]

    Electric arc furnace means any furnace wherein electrical energy is 
converted to heat energy by transmission of current between electrodes 
partially submerged in the furnace charge.
    Electrometallurgical operations means the use of electric and 
electrolytic processes to purify metals or reduce metallic compounds to 
metals.
    Fugitive emissions means any pollutant released to the atmosphere 
that is not discharged through a ventilation system that is 
specifically designed to capture pollutants at the source, convey them 
through ductwork, and exhausts them from a control device. Fugitive 
emissions include pollutants released to the atmosphere through 
windows, doors, vents, or other building openings. Fugitive emissions 
also include pollutants released to the atmosphere through other 
general building ventilation or exhaust systems not specifically 
designed to capture pollutants at the source.
    Sealed EAF means a furnace equipped with the cover with seals 
around the electrodes and outer edges of the cover to eliminate air 
being drawn in under the cover.
    Tapping means the removal of product from the EAF or other reaction 
vessel under normal operating conditions, such as removal of metal 
under normal pressure and movement by gravity down the spout into the 
ladle.


Sec.  63.11533-63.11543  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63

    As required in Sec.  63.11530, you must meet each requirement in 
the following table that applies to you.

     Table 1--To Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General
                               Provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Citation                              Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1 \1\......................  Applicability.
63.2..........................  Definitions.
63.3..........................  Units and abbreviations.
63.4..........................  Prohibited activities.
63.5..........................  Construction/reconstruction.
63.6..........................  Compliance with standards and
                                 maintenance.
63.8..........................  Monitoring.
63.9..........................  Notification.
63.10.........................  Recordkeeping and reporting.
63.12.........................  State authority and delegations.
63.13.........................  Addresses of State air pollution control
                                 agencies and EPA regional offices.
63.14.........................  Incorporation by reference.
63.15.........................  Availability of information and
                                 confidentiality.
63.16.........................  Performance track provisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sec.   63.11524(d), ``Am I subject to this subpart?'' exempts
  affected sources from the obligation to obtain title V operating
  permits.

[FR Doc. E8-21509 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>