Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production
Posted Date: 2011-11-23T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72508-72558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29455]

[[Page 72507]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 226

November 23, 2011

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys 
Production; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 226 / Wednesday, November 23, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 72508]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; FRL-9491-8]
RIN 2060-AQ-11

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing amendments to the national emissions 
standards for hazardous air pollutants for Ferroalloys Production to 
address the results of the residual risk and technology review that the 
EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act. These proposed 
amendments include revisions to particulate matter standards for 
electric arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining processes, and crushing 
and screening operations. The amendments also add emission limits for 
hydrochloric acid, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and 
formaldehyde from electric arc furnaces. Furthermore, the amendments 
expand and revise the requirements to control fugitive emissions from 
furnace operations and casting. Other proposed requirements related to 
testing, monitoring, notification, recordkeeping, and reporting are 
included. We are also proposing to revise provisions addressing periods 
of startup, shutdown, and malfunction to ensure that the rules are 
consistent with a recent court decision.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 2012. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before December 23, 2011.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by December 5, 2011, a public hearing will be held on 
December 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0895, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID Number 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895.
     Fax: (202) 566-9744, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0895.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of 
two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the 
information collection provisions to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk 
Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West (Air Docket), Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 
DC 20004, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
on-line at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know 
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body 
of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA 
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address 
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that 
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If 
you submit an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment 
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, 
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files 
should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 
be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the 
EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in regulations.gov or in 
hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. on December 8, 2011 and will be held at the EPA's campus in 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility 
nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as 
to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Virginia 
Hunt, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Sector 
Policies and Programs Division, (D243-02), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-0832.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed 
action, contact Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and Programs Division 
(D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: chin.conrad@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact Ms. Darcie Smith, Health and 
Environmental Impacts Division (C539-02), Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2076; 
fax number: (919) 541-0840; and email address: smith.darcie@epa.gov. 
For information about the applicability of the National Emissions 
Standards for

[[Page 72509]]

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) to a particular entity, contact the 
appropriate person listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--List of EPA Contacts for the NESHAP Addressed in This Proposed
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         NESHAP for:            OECA contact \1\      OAQPS contact \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production......  Cary Secrest, (202)   Conrad Chin, (919)
                               564-8661              541-1512,
                               secrest.cary@epa.go   chin.conrad@epa.gov
                               v.                    .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.
\2\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviations

    Several acronyms and terms used to describe industrial processes, 
data inventories, and risk modeling are included in this preamble. 
While this may not be an exhaustive list, to ease the reading of this 
preamble and for reference purposes, the following terms and acronyms 
are defined here:

ACI Activated Carbon Injection
ADAF age-dependent adjustment factors
AEGL acute exposure guideline levels
AERMOD air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BLDS bag leak detection system
BPT benefit-per-ton
CAA Clean Air Act
CalEPA California EPA
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CIIT Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology
CO2 carbon dioxide
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FR Federal Register
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrochloric acid
HEM-3 Human Exposure Model, Version 1.1.0
HI Hazard Index
HON hazardous organic national emissions standards for hazardous air 
pollutants
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR information collection request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
kg/hr kilograms per hour
kg/hr/MW kilograms per hour per megawatt
km kilometer
lb/hr pounds per hour
lb/hr/MW pounds per hour per megawatt
lb/yr pounds per year
LML lowest measured level
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MACT Code Code within the National Emissions Inventory used to 
identify processes included in a source category
MDL method detection limit
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MM millions
MW megawatt
NAC/AEGL Committee National Advisory Committee for Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NATA National Air Toxics Assessment
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRC National Research Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutants known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
POM polycyclic organic matter
QA quality assurance
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDL representative detection level
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RfD reference dose
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SOP standard operating procedures
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
TPY tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and 
Ecological Exposure model
TTN Technology Transfer Network
UF uncertainty factor
[mu]g/m\3\ microgram per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL upper predictive limit
URE unit risk estimate
VCS voluntary consensus standards
WWW world wide web

    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Summary of Costs and Benefits
    B. What are NESHAP?
    C. Does this action apply to me?
    D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
II. Background
    A. What is this source category and how did the 1999 MACT 
standards regulate its HAP emissions?
    B. What data collection activities were conducted to support 
this action?
    C. What other relevant background information from previous 
studies on ferroalloys emissions is available?
III. Analyses Performed
    A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?
    B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?
    C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for 
this proposal?
    D. How did we perform the technology review?
    E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?
IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions
    A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions 
regarding unregulated pollutants?
    B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?
    C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability 
and ample margin of safety?
    D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our 
technology review?
    E. What other actions are we proposing?
    F. What compliance dates are we proposing?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What demographic groups might benefit from this regulation?
VI. Request for Comments
VII. Submitting Data Corrections
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That

[[Page 72510]]

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    Consistent with the recently issued Executive Order 13563, 
``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' we have estimated the 
costs and benefits of the proposed rule. The estimated net benefits of 
the proposed rule at a 3 percent discount rate are $67 to $170 million 
or $59 to $150 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The monetized 
benefits in this analysis are due to PM2.5 co-benefits, as 
HAP benefits are not monetized. Table 2 presents a summary of the 
results of the analysis.

   Table 2--Summary of the Estimated Annual Monetized Benefits, Social
          Costs, and Net Benefits for the Proposed Rule in 2015
                          [Millions of 2010$] a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                3% Discount rate      7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Monetized Benefits b..  $71 to $170.........  $63 to $160.
Total Social Costs c........  $4.0................  $4.0.
Net Benefits................  $67 to $170.........  $59 to $150.
                             -------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Benefits......  Reduced exposure to Hazardous Air
                               Pollutants (HAP), including Manganese,
                               polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
                               Chromium, Arsenic, Nickel, and Mercury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a All estimates are for implementation year 2015 (the benefit estimates
  use 2016 values as an approximation); and are rounded to two
  significant figures so numbers may not sum across columns. All fine
  particles are assumed to have equivalent health effects, but the
  benefit-per-ton (BPT) estimates vary because each ton of precursor
  reduced has a different propensity to become particulate matter
  (PM)2.5. These benefits incorporate the conversion from precursor
  emissions to ambient fine particles. The BPT estimates are based on
  recent air quality modeling specific to the ferroalloys sector.
b All estimates are for 2016, which we use as an approximation for
  impacts in 2015.
c The compliance costs of the proposal serve as a proxy for the social
  costs. The compliance costs are estimated using a 7% interest rate.

    Under the proposed amendments, ferroalloys production facilities 
are expected to incur $11.4 million in capital costs to install new air 
pollution controls and new or improved monitoring systems. We have 
estimated the annualized costs to be $4.0 million, which includes 
estimated monitoring and testing costs. Section V.C of this preamble 
contains more detail on these estimated cost impacts.

B. What are NESHAP?

1. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a two-stage 
regulatory process to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. 
In the first stage, after the EPA has identified categories of sources 
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b), CAA 
section 112(d) calls for us to promulgate national technology-based 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for those 
sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit or have the potential to 
emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of a single HAP or 25 tpy or more 
of any combination of HAP. For major sources, these technology-based 
standards must reflect the maximum degree of emissions reductions of 
HAP achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and nonair 
quality health and environmental impacts) and are commonly referred to 
as maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards.
    MACT standards must require the maximum degree of emissions 
reduction achievable through the application of measures, processes, 
methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited to, 
measures that (1) Reduce the volume of or eliminate pollutants through 
process changes, substitution of materials or other modifications; (2) 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) capture or 
treat pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage, or 
fugitive emissions point; (4) are design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standards (including requirements for operator training or 
certification); or (5) are a combination of the above. CAA section 
112(d)(2)(A)-(E). The MACT standards may take the form of design, 
equipment, work practice, or operational standards where the EPA first 
determines either that, (1) a pollutant cannot be emitted through a 
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the pollutants, 
or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance would be 
inconsistent with law; or (2) the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to 
technological and economic limitations. CAA sections 112(h)(1)-(2).
    The MACT ``floor'' is the minimum control level allowed for MACT 
standards promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(3), and may not be based 
on cost considerations. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emissions control that is achieved in practice by 
the best-controlled similar source. The MACT floors for existing 
sources can be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they 
cannot be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved 
by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category 
or subcategory (or the best-performing five sources for categories or 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT 
standards, we must also consider control options that are more 
stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more stringent 
than the floor based on considerations of the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.
    The EPA is then required to review these technology-based standards 
and revise them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently 
than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6). In conducting this 
review, the EPA is not obliged to completely recalculate the prior MACT 
determination. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (DC Cir., 2008).
    The second stage in standard-setting focuses on reducing any 
remaining (i.e., ``residual'') risk according to CAA section 112(f). 
This provision requires, first, that the EPA prepare a Report to 
Congress discussing (among other things) methods of calculating the 
risks

[[Page 72511]]

posed (or potentially posed) by sources after implementation of the 
MACT standards, the public health significance of those risks, and the 
EPA's recommendations as to legislation regarding such remaining risk. 
The EPA prepared and submitted this report (Residual Risk Report to 
Congress, EPA-453/R-99-001) in March 1999. Congress did not act in 
response to the report, thereby triggering the EPA's obligation under 
CAA section 112(f)(2) to analyze and address residual risk.
    CAA section 112(f)(2) requires us to determine for source 
categories subject to certain MACT standards, whether those emissions 
standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health. 
If the MACT standards for HAP ``classified as a known, probable, or 
possible human carcinogen do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risks to 
the individual most exposed to emissions from a source in the category 
or subcategory to less than one in one million,'' the EPA must 
promulgate residual risk standards for the source category (or 
subcategory), as necessary to provide an ample margin of safety to 
protect public health. In doing so, the EPA may adopt standards equal 
to existing MACT standards if the EPA determines that the existing 
standards are sufficiently protective. NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 
(DC Cir. 2008). (``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based 
standards provide an ``ample margin of safety,'' then the Agency is 
free to readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'') 
The EPA must also adopt more stringent standards, if necessary, to 
prevent an adverse environmental effect,\1\ but must consider cost, 
energy, safety and other relevant factors in doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Adverse environmental effect'' is defined in CAA section 
112(a)(7) as any significant and widespread adverse effect, which 
may be reasonably anticipated to wildlife, aquatic life or natural 
resources, including adverse impacts on populations of endangered or 
threatened species or significant degradation of environmental 
qualities over broad areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 112(f)(2) of the CAA expressly preserves our use of the 
two-step process for developing standards to address any residual risk 
and our interpretation of ``ample margin of safety'' developed in the 
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Benzene 
Emissions From Maleic Anhydride Plants, Ethylbenzene/Styrene Plants, 
Benzene Storage Vessels, Benzene Equipment Leaks, and Coke By-Product 
Recovery Plants (Benzene NESHAP) (54 Federal Register (FR) 38044, 
September 14, 1989). The first step in this process is the 
determination of acceptable risk. The second step provides for an ample 
margin of safety to protect public health, which is the level at which 
the standards are to be set (unless an even more stringent standard is 
necessary to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect).
    The terms ``individual most exposed,'' ``acceptable level'' and 
``ample margin of safety'' are not specifically defined in the CAA. 
However, CAA section 112(f)(2)(B) preserves the EPA's interpretation 
set out in the Benzene NESHAP, and the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit in NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
concluded that the EPA's interpretation of subsection 112(f)(2) is a 
reasonable one. See NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d at 1083 (DC Cir. 2008), which 
says ``[S]ubsection 112(f)(2)(B) expressly incorporates the EPA's 
interpretation of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene standard, complete 
with a citation to the Federal Register.'' See also, A Legislative 
History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, volume 1, p. 877 
(Senate debate on Conference Report). We also notified Congress in the 
Residual Risk Report to Congress that we intended to use the Benzene 
NESHAP approach in making CAA section 112(f) residual risk 
determinations (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11).
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated as an overall objective:

* * * in protecting public health with an ample margin of safety, we 
strive to provide maximum feasible protection against risks to 
health from hazardous air pollutants by (1) protecting the greatest 
number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk level no 
higher than approximately 1 in 1 million; and (2) limiting to no 
higher than approximately 1-in-10 thousand [i.e., 100 in 1 million] 
the estimated risk that a person living near a facility would have 
if he or she were exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations 
for 70 years.

    The Agency also stated that, ``The EPA also considers incidence 
(the number of persons estimated to suffer cancer or other serious 
health effects as a result of exposure to a pollutant) to be an 
important measure of the health risk to the exposed population. 
Incidence measures the extent of health risks to the exposed population 
as a whole, by providing an estimate of the occurrence of cancer or 
other serious health effects in the exposed population.'' The Agency 
went on to conclude that ``estimated incidence would be weighed along 
with other health risk information in judging acceptability.'' As 
explained more fully in our Residual Risk Report to Congress, the EPA 
does not define ``rigid line[s] of acceptability,'' but rather 
considers broad objectives to be weighed with a series of other health 
measures and factors (EPA-453/R-99-001, p. ES-11). The determination of 
what represents an ``acceptable'' risk is based on a judgment of ``what 
risks are acceptable in the world in which we live'' (Residual Risk 
Report to Congress, p. 178, quoting the Vinyl Chloride decision at 824 
F.2d 1165) recognizing that our world is not risk-free.
    In the Benzene NESHAP, we stated that ``EPA will generally presume 
that if the risk to [the maximum exposed] individual is no higher than 
approximately one in 10 thousand, that risk level is considered 
acceptable.'' 54 FR 38045. We discussed the maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk (or maximum individual risk (MIR)) as being ``the estimated 
risk that a person living near a plant would have if he or she were 
exposed to the maximum pollutant concentrations for 70 years.'' Id. We 
explained that this measure of risk ``is an estimate of the upper bound 
of risk based on conservative assumptions, such as continuous exposure 
for 24 hours per day for 70 years.'' Id. We acknowledge that maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk ``does not necessarily reflect the true 
risk, but displays a conservative risk level which is an upper-bound 
that is unlikely to be exceeded.'' Id.
    Understanding that there are both benefits and limitations to using 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk as a metric for determining 
acceptability, we acknowledged in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP that 
``consideration of maximum individual risk * * * must take into account 
the strengths and weaknesses of this measure of risk.'' Id. 
Consequently, the presumptive risk level of 100 in one million (one in 
10 thousand) provides a benchmark for judging the acceptability of 
maximum individual lifetime cancer risk, but does not constitute a 
rigid line for making that determination. Further, in the Benzene 
NESHAP, we noted that, ``Particular attention will also be accorded to 
the weight of evidence presented in the risk assessment of potential 
carcinogenicity or other health effects of a pollutant. While the same 
numerical risk may be estimated for an exposure to a pollutant judged 
to be a known human carcinogen, and to a pollutant considered a 
possible human carcinogen based on limited animal test data, the same 
weight cannot be accorded to both estimates. In considering the 
potential public health effects of the two pollutants, the Agency's 
judgment on acceptability,

[[Page 72512]]

including the MIR, will be influenced by the greater weight of evidence 
for the known human carcinogen.'' Id. at 38046.
    The Agency also explained in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP the following: 
``In establishing a presumption for MIR, rather than a rigid line for 
acceptability, the Agency intends to weigh it with a series of other 
health measures and factors. These include the overall incidence of 
cancer or other serious health effects within the exposed population, 
the numbers of persons exposed within each individual lifetime risk 
range and associated incidence within, typically, a 50-kilometer (km) 
exposure radius around facilities, the science policy assumptions and 
estimation uncertainties associated with the risk measures, weight of 
the scientific evidence for human health effects, other quantified or 
unquantified health effects, effects due to co-location of facilities, 
and co-emissions of pollutants.'' Id.
    In some cases, these health measures and factors taken together may 
provide a more realistic description of the magnitude of risk in the 
exposed population than that provided by maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk alone. As explained in the Benzene NESHAP, ``[e]ven though 
the risks judged `acceptable' by EPA in the first step of the Vinyl 
Chloride inquiry are already low, the second step of the inquiry, 
determining an `ample margin of safety,' again includes consideration 
of all of the health factors, and whether to reduce the risks even 
further * * *. Beyond that information, additional factors relating to 
the appropriate level of control will also be considered, including 
costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, 
uncertainties, and any other relevant factors. Considering all of these 
factors, the Agency will establish the standard at a level that 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health as 
required by section 112.''
    In NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1082 (DC Cir. 2008), the Court of 
Appeals held that section 112(f)(2) ``incorporates EPA's 
`interpretation' of the Clean Air Act from the Benzene Standard, and 
the text of this provision draws no distinction between carcinogens and 
non-carcinogens.'' Additionally, the Court held there is nothing on the 
face of the statute that limits the Agency's section 112(f) assessment 
of risk to carcinogens. Id. at 1081-82. In the NRDC case, the 
petitioners argued, among other things, that section 112(f)(2)(B) 
applied only to non-carcinogens. The DC Circuit rejected this position, 
holding that the text of that provision ``draws no distinction between 
carcinogens and non-carcinogens,'' id., and that Congress' 
incorporation of the Benzene standard applies equally to carcinogens 
and non-carcinogens.
    In the ample margin of safety decision process, the Agency again 
considers all of the health risks and other health information 
considered in the first step. Beyond that information, additional 
factors relating to the appropriate level of control will also be 
considered, including costs and economic impacts of controls, 
technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other relevant 
factors. Considering all of these factors, the Agency will establish 
the standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety to 
protect the public health, as required by CAA section 112(f). 54 FR 
38046.
2. How do we consider the risk results in making decisions?
    As discussed in the previous section of this preamble, we apply a 
two-step process for developing standards to address residual risk. In 
the first step, the EPA determines if risks are acceptable. This 
determination ``considers all health information, including risk 
estimation uncertainty, and includes a presumptive limit on maximum 
individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) \2\ of approximately one in 10 
thousand [i.e., 100 in one million].'' 54 FR 38045. In the second step 
of the process, the EPA sets the standard at a level that provides an 
ample margin of safety ``in consideration of all health information, 
including the number of persons at risk levels higher than 
approximately one in one million, as well as other relevant factors, 
including costs and economic impacts, technological feasibility, and 
other factors relevant to each particular decision.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level 
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past residual risk determinations, the EPA presented a number of 
human health risk metrics associated with emissions from the category 
under review, including: The MIR; the numbers of persons in various 
risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer hazard index (HI); 
and the maximum acute noncancer hazard. In estimating risks, the EPA 
considered sources under review that are located near each other and 
that affect the same population. The EPA developed risk estimates based 
on the actual emissions from the source category under review as well 
as based on the maximum emissions allowed pursuant to the source 
category MACT standard. The EPA also discussed and considered risk 
estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of 
information in support of these actions.
    The Agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides 
flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making our 
determinations and how they might be weighed for each source category. 
In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene NESHAP, the 
EPA explained that: ``The policy chosen by the Administrator permits 
consideration of multiple measures of health risk. Not only can the MIR 
figure be considered, but also incidence, the presence of noncancer 
health effects, and the uncertainties of the risk estimates. In this 
way, the effect on the most exposed individuals can be reviewed as well 
as the impact on the general public. These factors can then be weighed 
in each individual case. This approach complies with the Vinyl Chloride 
mandate that the Administrator ascertain an acceptable level of risk to 
the public by employing [her] expertise to assess available data. It 
also complies with the Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did 
not exclude the use of any particular measure of public health risk 
from the EPA's consideration with respect to CAA section 112 
regulations, and, thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and 
all measures of health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, 
believes are appropriate to determining what will `protect the public 
health.' ''
    For example, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed 
in determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explains ``an 
MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the upper 
end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this 
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR 
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the 
light of other health risk factors.'' Similarly, with regard to the 
ample margin of safety analysis, the Benzene NESHAP states that: ``EPA 
believes the relative weight of the many factors that can be considered 
in selecting an ample margin of safety can only be determined for each 
specific source category. This occurs mainly because technological

[[Page 72513]]

and economic factors (along with the health-related factors) vary from 
source category to source category.''

C. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated industrial source category that is the subject of 
this proposal is listed in Table 3. Table 3 of this preamble is not 
intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 
regarding the entities likely to be affected by this proposed action. 
The proposed standards, once finalized, will be directly applicable to 
affected sources. Federal, state, local, and tribal government entities 
are not affected by this proposed action. As defined in the MACT (major 
source) source category listing report published by the EPA in 1992, 
the ``Ferroalloys Production'' source category is any facility engaged 
in producing ferroalloys such as ferrosilicon, ferromanganese, and 
ferrochrome.\3\ Subsequently, the EPA redefined the MACT source 
category when it promulgated the Ferroalloy MACT standard so that it 
now includes only major sources that produce products containing 
manganese. (64 FR 27450, May 20, 1999) The MACT standard applies 
specifically to two ferroalloy product types: ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA. Documentation for Developing the Initial Source 
Category List--Final Report, EPA/OAQPS, EPA-450/3-91-030, July, 
1992.

                Table 3--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Source category                              NESHAP               NAICS code \1\   MACT code \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production........................  Ferroalloys Production..........          331112            0304
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
\2\ Maximum Achievable Control Technology.

D. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) 
through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature by the EPA Administrator, 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/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The TTN provides information and technology exchange 
in various areas of air pollution control. Supporting documents and 
other relevant information including a version of the regulatory text 
showing specific proposed changes is located in the docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895).
    Additional information is available on the residual risk and 
technology review (RTR) Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes source category descriptions and 
detailed emissions estimates and other data that were used as inputs to 
the risk assessment.

E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA 
through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or 
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on 
a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 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 comments that includes information claimed 
as CBI, a copy of the comments that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. If 
you submit a CD-ROM or disk that does not contain CBI, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD-ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as 
CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set 
forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2. Send or deliver 
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto 
Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, Attention Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895.

II. Background

A. What is this source category and how did the 1999 MACT standards 
regulate its HAP emissions?

    The NESHAP (or MACT rule) for Ferroalloys Production: 
Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese was promulgated on May 20, 1999 (64 
FR 27450) and codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX.\4\ The 1999 
NESHAP applies to all new and existing ferroalloys production 
facilities that manufacture ferromanganese or silicomanganese and are 
major sources or are co-located at major sources of HAP emissions. The 
rule's product-specific applicability reflected the fact that there was 
only one known major source within the Ferroalloys Production source 
category at the time of promulgation. Since then, one other major 
source of silicomanganese has started production, but it was permitted 
as an existing source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The emission limits were revised on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 
16024) in response to a petition for reconsideration submitted to 
the EPA following promulgation of the final rule, and a petition for 
review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, there are two ferroalloys production facilities subject to 
the MACT rule. No greenfield manganese ferroalloys production 
facilities have been built in over 20 years, and we anticipate no 
greenfield manganese ferroalloys production facilities in the 
foreseeable future, although one facility is currently exploring 
expanding operations through the addition of a new furnace.
    Ferroalloys are alloys of iron in which one or more chemical 
elements (such as chromium, manganese, and silicon) are added into 
molten metal. Ferroalloys are consumed primarily in iron and steel 
making and are used to produce steel and cast iron products with 
enhanced or special properties.
    Ferroalloys within the scope of this source category are produced 
using submerged electric arc furnaces, which are furnaces in which the 
electrodes are submerged into the charge. The submerged arc process is 
a reduction smelting operation. The reactants consist of metallic ores 
(ferrous oxides, silicon oxides, manganese oxides, etc.) and a carbon-
source reducing agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and 
low-volatility coal, or wood chips. Raw materials are crushed and 
sized, and then conveyed to a mix house for weighing and blending. 
Conveyors, buckets, skip hoists, or cars transport the processed 
material to hoppers above the furnace. The mix is gravity-fed

[[Page 72514]]

through a feed chute either continuously or intermittently, as needed. 
At high temperatures in the reaction zone, the carbon source reacts 
with metal oxides to form carbon monoxide and to reduce the ores to 
base metal.\5\ The molten material (product and slag) is tapped from 
the furnace, sometimes subject to post-furnace refining, and poured 
into casting beds on the furnace room floor. Once the material hardens, 
it is transported to product crushing and sizing systems and packaged 
for transport to the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA. AP-42, 12.4. Ferroalloy Production. 10/86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HAP generating processes include electrometallurgical (furnace) 
operations (smelting and tapping), other furnace room operations (ladle 
treatment and casting), building fugitives, raw material handling and 
product handling. HAP are emitted from ferroalloys production as 
process emissions, process fugitive emissions, and outdoor fugitive 
dust emissions.
    Process emissions are the exhaust gases from the control devices, 
primarily the furnace control device, metal oxygen refining control 
device and crushing operations control device. The HAP in process 
emissions are primarily composed of metals (mostly manganese, arsenic, 
nickel, lead, mercury and chromium) and also may include organic 
compounds that result from incomplete combustion of coal, coke or other 
fuel that is charged to the furnaces as a reducing agent. There are 
also process metal HAP emissions from the product crushing control 
devices. Process fugitive emissions occur at various points during the 
smelting process (such as during charging and tapping of furnaces and 
casting) and are assumed to be similar in composition to the process 
emissions. Outdoor fugitive dust emissions result from the entrainment 
of HAP in ambient air due to material handling, vehicle traffic, wind 
erosion from storage piles, and other various activities. Outdoor 
fugitive dust emissions are composed of particulate metal HAP only.
    The MACT rule applies to process emissions from the submerged arc 
furnaces, the metal oxygen refining process, and the product crushing 
equipment, process fugitive emissions from the furnace and outdoor 
fugitive dust emissions sources such as roadways, yard areas, and 
outdoor material storage and transfer operations. For process sources, 
the NESHAP specifies numerical emissions limits for particulate matter 
(as a surrogate for non-mercury (or particulate) metal HAP) from the 
electric (submerged) arc furnaces (including smelting and tapping 
emissions), with the specific limits depending on furnace type, size, 
and product being made. Particulate matter emission limits (again as a 
surrogate for particulate metal HAP) are also in place for process 
emissions from the metal oxygen refining process and product crushing 
and screening equipment. Table 4 is a summary of the applicable limits.

                                     Table 4--Emission Limits in Subpart XXX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Applicable PM
    New or reconstructed or              Affected source               emission         Subpart XXX  reference
        existing source                                               standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or reconstructed..........  Submerged arc furnace...........  0.23 kilograms     40 CFR 63.1652(a)(1) and
                                                                   per hour per       (a)(2)
                                                                   megawatt (kg/hr/
                                                                   MW) (0.51 pounds
                                                                   per hour per
                                                                   megawatt (lb/hr/
                                                                   MW) or 35
                                                                   milligrams per
                                                                   dry standard
                                                                   cubic meter (mg/
                                                                   dscm) (0.015
                                                                   grains per dry
                                                                   standard cubic
                                                                   foot (gr/dscf).
Existing......................  Open submerged arc furnace        9.8 kg/hr (21.7    40 CFR 63.1652(b)(1)
                                 producing ferromanganese and      lb/hr).
                                 operating at a furnace power
                                 input of 22 megawatts (MW) or
                                 less.
Existing......................  Open submerged arc furnace        13.5 kg/hr (29.8   40 CFR 63.1652(b)(2)
                                 producing ferromanganese and      lb/hr).
                                 operating at a furnace power
                                 input greater than 22 MW.
Existing......................  Open submerged arc furnace        16.3 kg/hr (35.9   40 CFR 63.1652(b)(3)
                                 producing silicomanganese and     lb/hr).
                                 operating at a furnace power
                                 input greater than 25 MW.
Existing......................  Open submerged arc furnace        12.3 kg/hr (27.2   40 CFR 63.1652(b)(4)
                                 producing silicomanganese and     lb/hr).
                                 operating at a furnace power
                                 input of 25 MW or less.
Existing......................  Semi-sealed submerged arc         11.2 kg/hr (24.7   40 CFR 63.1652(c)
                                 furnace (primary, tapping, and    lb/hr).
                                 vent stacks) producing
                                 ferromanganese.
New, reconstructed, or          Metal oxygen refining process...  69 mg/dscm (0.03   40 CFR 63.1652(d)
 existing.                                                         gr/dscf).
New or reconstructed..........  Individual equipment associated   50 mg/dscm (0.022  40 CFR 63.1652(e)(1)
                                 with the product crushing and     gr/dscf).
                                 screening operation.
Existing......................  Individual equipment associated   69 mg/dscm (0.03   40 CFR 63.1652(e)(2)
                                 with the product crushing and     gr/dscf).
                                 screening operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 1999 NESHAP established a building opacity limit of 20 percent 
that is measured during the required furnace control device performance 
test. The rule provides an excursion limit of 60 percent opacity for 
one 6-minute period during the performance test. The opacity 
observation is focused only on emissions exiting the shop due solely to 
operations of any affected submerged arc furnace. In addition, blowing 
taps, poling and oxygen lancing of the tap hole; burndowns associated 
with electrode measurements; and maintenance activities associated with 
submerged arc furnaces and casting operations are exempt from the 
opacity standards specified in Sec.  63.1653.

[[Page 72515]]

    For outdoor fugitive dust sources, as defined in Sec.  63.1652, the 
1999 NESHAP requires that plants prepare and operate according to an 
outdoor fugitive dust control plan that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place to control outdoor fugitive dust 
emissions from the individual outdoor fugitive dust sources at the 
facility. The owner or operator must submit a copy of the outdoor 
fugitive dust control plan to the designated permitting authority on or 
before the applicable compliance date.

B. What data collection activities were conducted to support this 
action?

    In April 2010, we issued an information collection request (ICR), 
pursuant to CAA section 114, to the two companies that own and operate 
the two known ferroalloys production facilities producing 
ferromanganese and silicomanganese. The ICR requested available 
information regarding process equipment, control devices, point and 
fugitive emissions, practices used to control fugitive emissions, and 
other aspects of facility operations. The two companies completed the 
surveys for their facilities and submitted the responses to us in the 
fall of 2010. We also requested that the two facilities conduct 
additional emissions tests in 2010 for certain HAP from specific 
processes that were considered representative of the industry. 
Additional emissions testing was performed for most HAP metals (e.g., 
manganese, arsenic, chromium, lead, nickel and mercury), hydrochloric 
acid (HCl), formaldehyde, and PAH. The results of these tests were 
submitted to the EPA in the fall of 2010 and are available in the 
docket for this action.
    During the development of this regulation we discovered other types 
of ferroalloys production facilities (e.g., non-manganese ferroalloy 
production) that are not subject to this NESHAP. We plan to gather 
additional information on these other types of sources, and then 
evaluate whether we need to establish MACT standards for these sources.

C. What other relevant background information from previous studies on 
ferroalloys emissions is available?

    In addition to the emissions information and risk assessment 
described in this preamble, other sources of publicly available data 
exist. Based on historical emissions data from the EPA's Toxics Release 
Inventory, one of the manganese ferroalloys facilities in this source 
category \6\ has been one of the highest-emitters of manganese in the 
country for at least 15 years (http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tri/index.html). Several agencies have conducted studies of the emissions 
from this facility and potential health effects of those emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Eramet Marrietta, located in Marietta, Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), of 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Ohio 
Department of Health and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
conducted two health consultations in the communities surrounding this 
manganese ferroalloys facility between 2004 and 2007. The 
investigations found average ambient concentrations of manganese at 
levels higher than background concentrations and higher than health 
benchmark concentrations. More information about these studies can be 
found at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/washington_marietta/index.html.
    As a result of these findings, a health study of chronic adult 
exposure to ambient manganese in the communities surrounding the 
facility was funded by the EPA. Available results show no significant 
differences in blood manganese concentrations or major health outcomes 
between residents living near the facility and residents in a 
comparison town; however some subtle, subclinical motor (movement) 
differences were found in residents in the town with the facility.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In press: Kim Y et al. Motor function in adults of an Ohio 
community with environmental manganese exposure. 2011 
Neurotoxicology, doi: 10.1016/j. neuro.2011.07.011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, under the EPA's School Air Toxics Initiative, ambient 
concentrations of manganese were monitored at three schools located 
near the ferroalloys production facility in late 2009. At these 
locations, mean manganese concentrations above the health benchmark 
value were observed. We note that the daily monitored values were in 
some cases above the RfC and in some cases below. The daily values were 
highly variable as they were likely influenced by wind direction and 
speed. More information about the health benchmark value is available 
in section III.B. More information on the School Air Toxics Initiative 
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/index/html, while the 
study including the area around this facility can be found at http://www.epa.gov/schoolair/pdfs/MariettaTechReport.pdf. The monitoring was 
conducted for the School Air Toxics Initiative; however we do present a 
comparison of modeled concentrations to monitored concentrations in the 
Risk Assessment document, which is available in the docket.

III. Analyses Performed

    In this section, we describe the analyses performed to support the 
proposed decisions for the RTR for this source category.

A. How did we address unregulated emissions sources?

    In the course of evaluating the Ferroalloys Production source 
category, we identified certain HAP for which we failed to establish 
emission standards in the original MACT. See National Lime v. EPA, 233 
F. 3d 625, 634 (DC Cir. 2000) (EPA has ``clear statutory obligation to 
set emissions standards for each listed HAP''). Specifically, we 
identified and evaluated emissions standards for four HAP (or groups of 
HAP), described below, that are not specifically regulated in the 
existing 1999 MACT standard, or are only regulated for certain 
emissions points. As described below, for these HAP (or groups of HAP), 
we are proposing emissions limits pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and 
112(d)(3). The results and proposed decisions based on the analyses 
performed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3) are presented 
in section IV.A of this preamble.
1. Hydrochloric acid
    We were unaware of the potential for hydrochloric acid (HCl) 
emissions when we developed the 1999 NESHAP. As a result, we did not 
establish standards for HCl for these sources in the 1999 NESHAP. We 
recently received HCl emissions data in response to the ICR. Therefore, 
we are proposing a standard pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) 
(as described further in section IV.A of this preamble).
2. Mercury
    The 1999 NESHAP specified emissions limits for particulate metal 
HAP (e.g., manganese, arsenic, nickel, chromium) in terms of a 
particulate matter emissions limit (i.e., particulate matter is used as 
a surrogate for metal HAP that are mainly emitted in particulate form). 
There is no explicit standard for mercury, and a significant fraction 
of the mercury emissions are expected to be in gaseous mercury forms 
(e.g., gaseous elemental mercury or gaseous oxidized mercury) with a 
smaller fraction in particulate form. Therefore, we are proposing a 
standard specifically for mercury pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and 
(d)(3) (as described further in section IV.A of this preamble).

[[Page 72516]]

3. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
    As described above, the 1999 NESHAP only regulated particulate 
metal HAP emissions and did not establish standards for PAH. Since 
then, we have determined that electric arc furnaces emit PAH, and we 
are proposing a standard pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3) (as 
described further in section IV.A of this preamble).
4. Formaldehyde
    As described above, the 1999 NESHAP only regulated particulate 
metal HAP emissions and did not establish standards for formaldehyde. 
Since then, we have determined that electric arc furnaces emit 
formaldehyde, and we are proposing a standard pursuant to section 
112(d)(2) and (d)(3) (as described further in section IV.A of this 
preamble).

B. How did we estimate risks posed by the source category?

    The EPA conducted a risk assessment that provided estimates of the 
MIR posed by the HAP emissions from each source in the source category, 
the HI for chronic exposures to HAP with the potential to cause 
noncancer health effects, and the hazard quotient (HQ) for acute 
exposures to HAP with the potential to cause noncancer health effects. 
The assessment also provided estimates of the distribution of cancer 
risks within the exposed populations, cancer incidence and an 
evaluation of the potential for adverse environmental effects for each 
source category. The risk assessment consisted of seven primary steps, 
as discussed below. The docket for this rulemaking contains the 
following document which provides more information on the risk 
assessment inputs and models: Draft Residual Risk Assessment for the 
Ferroalloys Production Source Category. The methods used to assess 
risks (as described in the seven primary steps below) are consistent 
with those peer-reviewed by a panel of the EPA's Science Advisory Board 
(SAB) in 2009 and described in their peer review report issued in 2010; 
\8\ they are also consistent with the key recommendations contained in 
that report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. EPA SAB. Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Risk 
Assessment Methodologies: For Review by the EPA's Science Advisory 
Board with Case Studies--MACT I Petroleum Refining Sources and 
Portland Cement Manufacturing, May 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Establishing the Nature and Magnitude of Actual Emissions and 
Identifying the Emissions Release Characteristics
    The two existing ferromanganese and silicomanganese production 
facilities constitute the dataset that is the basis for the risk 
assessment. We estimated the magnitude of emissions using data 
collected through the ICR. In addition to the quality assurance (QA) of 
the source data for the facilities contained in the dataset, we also 
checked the coordinates of every emission source in the dataset through 
visual observations using tools such as GoogleEarth and ArcView. Where 
coordinates were found to be incorrect, we identified and corrected 
them to the extent possible. We also performed QA of the emissions data 
and release characteristics to ensure the data were reliable and that 
there were no outliers.
2. Establishing the Relationship Between Actual Emissions and MACT-
Allowable Emissions Levels
    The emissions data in the MACT dataset include estimates of the 
mass of emissions actually emitted during the specified annual time 
period. These ``actual'' emission levels are often lower than the 
emission levels that a facility might be allowed to emit and still 
comply with the MACT standards. The emissions level allowed to be 
emitted by the MACT standards is referred to as the ``MACT-allowable'' 
emissions level. This represents the highest emissions level that could 
be emitted by facilities without violating the MACT standards.
    We discussed the use of both MACT-allowable and actual emissions in 
the final Coke Oven Batteries residual risk rule (70 FR 19998-19999, 
April 15, 2005) and in the proposed and final Hazardous Organic NESHAP 
residual risk rules (71 FR 34428, June 14, 2006, and 71 FR 76609, 
December 21, 2006, respectively). In those previous actions, we noted 
that assessing the risks at the MACT-allowable level is inherently 
reasonable because these risks reflect the maximum level sources could 
emit and still comply with national emission standards. But we also 
explained that it is reasonable to consider actual emissions, where 
such data are available, in both steps of the risk analysis, in 
accordance with the Benzene NESHAP. (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989.)
    For the Ferroalloys Production source category, we evaluated 
allowable stack emissions, based on the level of control required by 
the MACT standards compared to the level of reported actual emissions 
and available information on the level of control achieved by the 
emissions controls in use. Further explanation is provided in the 
technical document: Draft Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for 
the Ferroalloys Production Source Category, which is available in the 
docket.
3. Conducting Dispersion Modeling, Determining Inhalation Exposures, 
and Estimating Individual and Population Inhalation Risks
    Both long-term and short-term inhalation exposure concentrations 
and health risks from the source category addressed in this proposal 
were estimated using the Human Exposure Model (Community and Sector 
HEM-3 version 1.1.0). The HEM-3 performs three of the primary risk 
assessment activities listed above: (1) Conducting dispersion modeling 
to estimate the concentrations of HAP in ambient air, (2) estimating 
long-term and short-term inhalation exposures to individuals residing 
within 50 km of the modeled sources, and (3) estimating individual and 
population-level inhalation risks using the exposure estimates and 
quantitative dose-response information.
    The air dispersion model used by the HEM-3 model (AERMOD) is one of 
the EPA's preferred models for assessing pollutant concentrations from 
industrial facilities.\9\ To perform the dispersion modeling and to 
develop the preliminary risk estimates, HEM-3 draws on three data 
libraries. The first is a library of meteorological data, which is used 
for dispersion calculations. This library includes 1 year of hourly 
surface and upper air observations for 189 meteorological stations, 
selected to provide coverage of the United States and Puerto Rico. A 
second library, of United States Census Bureau census block \10\ 
internal point locations and populations, provides the basis of human 
exposure calculations (Census, 2000). In addition, for each census 
block, the census library includes the elevation and controlling hill 
height, which are also used in dispersion calculations. A third library 
of pollutant unit risk factors and other health benchmarks is used to 
estimate health risks. These risk factors and health benchmarks are the 
latest values recommended by the EPA for HAP and other toxic air 
pollutants. These values are available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/toxsource/summary.html and are

[[Page 72517]]

discussed in more detail later in this section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. EPA Revision to the Guideline on Air Quality Models: 
Adoption of a Preferred General Purpose (Flat and Complex Terrain) 
Dispersion Model and Other Revisions (70 FR 68218, November 9, 
2005).
    \10\ A census block is the smallest geographic area for which 
census statistics are tabulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the risk assessment for chronic exposures, we used 
the estimated annual average ambient air concentrations of each of the 
HAP emitted by each source for which we have emissions data in the 
source category. The air concentrations at each nearby census block 
centroid were used as a surrogate for the chronic inhalation exposure 
concentration for all the people who reside in that census block. We 
calculated the MIR for each facility as the cancer risk associated with 
a continuous lifetime (24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and 52 weeks 
per year for a 70-year period) exposure to the maximum concentration at 
the centroid of inhabited census blocks. Individual cancer risks were 
calculated by multiplying the estimated lifetime exposure to the 
ambient concentration of each of the HAP (in micrograms per cubic meter 
([mu]g/m\3\)) by its unit risk estimate (URE), which is an upper bound 
estimate of an individual's probability of contracting cancer over a 
lifetime of exposure to a concentration of 1 microgram of the pollutant 
per cubic meter of air. For residual risk assessments, we generally use 
URE values from the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 
For carcinogenic pollutants without the EPA IRIS values, we look to 
other reputable sources of cancer dose-response values, often using 
California EPA (CalEPA) URE values, where available. In cases where 
new, scientifically credible dose response values have been developed 
in a manner consistent with the EPA guidelines and have undergone a 
peer review process similar to that used by the EPA, we may use such 
dose-response values in place of, or in addition to, other values, if 
appropriate. In the case of nickel compounds, to provide a health 
protective estimate of potential cancer risks, we used the URE value 
for nickel subsulfide in this assessment. Based on past scientific and 
technical considerations, the determination of the percent of nickel 
subsulfide was considered a major factor for estimating the extent and 
magnitude of the risks of cancer due to nickel-containing emissions. 
Nickel speciation information for some of the largest nickel-emitting 
sources (including oil combustion, coal combustion, and others) 
suggested that at least 35 percent of the total nickel emissions may be 
soluble compounds and that the URE for the mixture of inhaled nickel 
compounds (based on nickel subsulfide, and representative of pure 
insoluble crystalline nickel) could be derived to reflect the 
assumption that 65 percent of the total mass of nickel may be 
carcinogenic. Based on consistent views of major scientific bodies 
(i.e., National Toxicology Program in their 12th Report on 
Carcinogens,\11\ International Agency for Research on Cancer,\12\ and 
other international agencies) \13\ that consider all nickel compounds 
to be carcinogenic, we currently consider all nickel compounds to have 
the potential of being carcinogenic to humans. The major scientific 
bodies mentioned above have also recognized that there are differences 
in toxicity and/or carcinogenic potential across the different nickel 
compounds. More discussion of the nickel URE can be found in the risk 
assessment report in the docket for this action. For this analysis, to 
take a more health-protective approach, we considered all nickel 
compounds to be as carcinogenic as nickel subsulfide in our inhalation 
risk assessments and have applied the IRIS URE for nickel subsulfide 
without a factor to reflect the assumption that 100 percent of the 
total mass of nickel may be as carcinogenic as pure nickel subsulfide. 
In addition, given that there are two URE values \14\ derived for 
exposure to mixtures of nickel compounds, as a group, that are 2-3 fold 
lower than the IRIS URE for nickel subsulfide, we also consider it 
reasonable to use a value that is 50 percent of the IRIS URE for nickel 
subsulfide for providing an estimate of the lower end of a plausible 
range of cancer potency values for different mixtures of nickel 
compounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ National Toxicology Program (NTP), 2011. Report on 
carcinogens. 12th ed. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (DHHS), Public Health Service. Available 
online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/roc12.pdf.
    \12\ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARD), 1990. 
IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. 
Chromium, nickel, and welding. Vol. 49. Lyons, France: International 
Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization Vol. 
49:256.
    \13\ World Health Organization (WHO, 1991) and the European 
Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks 
(SCHER, 2006).
    \14\ Two UREs (other than the current IRIS values) have been 
derived for nickel compounds as a group: one developed by the 
California Department of Health Services (http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/summary/nickel_tech_b.pdf) and the other by the Texas 
Commission on Environmental Quality (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata1999/99pdfs/healtheffectsinfo.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also note that polycyclic organic matter (POM) (of which PAH are 
a subset), a carcinogenic HAP with a mutagenic mode of action, is 
emitted by the facilities in this source category.\15\ For this 
compound group,\16\ the age-dependent adjustment factors (ADAF) 
described in the EPA's Supplemental Guidance for Assessing 
Susceptibility from Early-Life Exposure to Carcinogens \17\ were 
applied. This adjustment has the effect of increasing the estimated 
lifetime risks for POM by a factor of 1.6. In addition, although only a 
small fraction of the total POM emissions were not reported as 
individual compounds, the EPA expresses carcinogenic potency for 
compounds in this group in terms of benzo[a]pyrene equivalence, based 
on evidence that carcinogenic POM has the same mutagenic mechanism of 
action as benzo[a]pyrene. For this reason, the EPA's Science Policy 
Council \18\ recommends applying the Supplemental Guidance to all 
carcinogenic PAH for which risk estimates are based on relative 
potency. Accordingly, we have applied the ADAF to the benzo[a]pyrene 
equivalent portion of all POM mixtures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ U.S. EPA. Performing risk assessments that include 
carcinogens described in the Supplemental Guidance as having a 
mutagenic mode of action. Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Work Group Communication I: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated October 4, 2005.
    \16\ See the Risk Assessment for Source Categories document 
available in the docket for a list of HAP with a mutagenic mode of 
action.
    \17\ U.S. EPA Supplemental Guidance for Assessing Early-Life 
Exposure to Carcinogens. EPA/630/R-3/003F, 2005. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/childrens_supplement_final.pdf.
    \18\ U.S. EPA Science Policy Council Cancer Guidelines 
Implementation Workgroup Communication II: Memo from W.H. Farland, 
dated June 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incremental individual lifetime cancer risks associated with 
emissions from the two facilities in the source category were estimated 
as the sum of the risks for each of the carcinogenic HAP (including 
those classified as carcinogenic to humans, likely to be carcinogenic 
to humans, and suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential \19\) 
emitted by the modeled source. Cancer incidence and the distribution of 
individual cancer risks for the population within 50 km of the sources 
were also estimated for the source category as part of this assessment 
by summing individual risks. A distance of 50 km is consistent with 
both the

[[Page 72518]]

analysis supporting the 1989 Benzene NESHAP (54 FR 38044) and the 
limitations of Gaussian dispersion models, including AERMOD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ These classifications also coincide with the terms ``known 
carcinogen, probable carcinogen, and possible carcinogen,'' 
respectively, which are the terms advocated in the EPA's previous 
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 1986 (51 FR 
33992, September 24, 1986). Summing the risks of these individual 
compounds to obtain the cumulative cancer risks is an approach that 
was recommended by the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in their 
2002 peer review of EPA's National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) 
entitled, NATA--Evaluating the National-scale Air Toxics Assessment 
1996 Data--an SAB Advisory, available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/
sab/sabproduct.nsf/214C6E915BB04E14852570CA007A682C/$File/
ecadv02001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assess the risk of non-cancer health effects from chronic 
exposures, we summed the HQ for each of the HAP that affects a common 
target organ system to obtain the HI for that target organ system (or 
target organ-specific HI, TOSHI). The HQ is the estimated exposure 
divided by the chronic reference value, which is either the EPA 
reference concentration (RfC), defined as ``an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive 
subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of 
deleterious effects during a lifetime,'' or, in cases where an RfC from 
the EPA's IRIS database is not available, the EPA will utilize the 
following prioritized sources for our chronic dose-response values: (1) 
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Minimum Risk 
Level, which is defined as ``an estimate of daily human exposure to a 
substance that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse 
effects (other than cancer) over a specified duration of exposure''; 
(2) the CalEPA Chronic Reference Exposure Level (REL), which is defined 
as ``the concentration level at or below which no adverse health 
effects are anticipated for a specified exposure duration''; and (3), 
as noted above, in cases where scientifically credible dose-response 
values have been developed in a manner consistent with the EPA 
guidelines and have undergone a peer review process similar to that 
used by the EPA, we may use those dose-response values in place of or 
in concert with other values.
    Screening estimates of acute exposures and risks were also 
evaluated for each of the HAP at the point of highest off-site exposure 
for each facility (i.e., not just the census block centroids), assuming 
that a person is located at this spot at a time when both the peak 
(hourly) emission rate and worst-case dispersion conditions (1991 
calendar year data) occur. The acute HQ is the estimated acute exposure 
divided by the acute dose-response value. In each case, acute HQ values 
were calculated using best available, short-term dose-response values. 
These acute dose-response values, which are described below, include 
the acute REL, acute exposure guideline levels (AEGL) and emergency 
response planning guidelines (ERPG) for 1-hour exposure durations. As 
discussed below, we used conservative assumptions for emission rates, 
meteorology and exposure location for our acute analysis.
    As described in the CalEPA's Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk 
Assessment Guidelines, Part I, The Determination of Acute Reference 
Exposure Levels for Airborne Toxicants, an acute REL value (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/pdf/acuterel.pdf) is defined as ``the 
concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are 
anticipated for a specified exposure duration.'' Acute REL values are 
based on the most sensitive, relevant, adverse health effect reported 
in the medical and toxicological literature. Acute REL values are 
designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population by 
the inclusion of margins of safety. Because margins of safety are 
incorporated to address data gaps and uncertainties, exceeding the REL 
does not automatically indicate an adverse health impact.
    AEGL values were derived in response to recommendations from the 
National Research Council (NRC). As described in Standing Operating 
Procedures (SOP) of the National Advisory Committee on Acute Exposure 
Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances (http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/aegl/pubs/sop.pdf),\20\ ``the NRC's previous name for acute exposure 
levels--community emergency exposure levels--was replaced by the term 
AEGL to reflect the broad application of these values to planning, 
response, and prevention in the community, the workplace, 
transportation, the military, and the remediation of Superfund sites.'' 
This document also states that AEGL values ``represent threshold 
exposure limits for the general public and are applicable to emergency 
exposures ranging from 10 minutes to eight hours.'' The document lays 
out the purpose and objectives of AEGL by stating (page 21) that ``the 
primary purpose of the AEGL program and the National Advisory Committee 
for Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Hazardous Substances is to 
develop guideline levels for once-in-a-lifetime, short-term exposures 
to airborne concentrations of acutely toxic, high-priority chemicals.'' 
In detailing the intended application of AEGL values, the document 
states (page 31) that ``[i]t is anticipated that the AEGL values will 
be used for regulatory and nonregulatory purposes by U.S. Federal and 
state agencies and possibly the international community in conjunction 
with chemical emergency response, planning, and prevention programs. 
More specifically, the AEGL values will be used for conducting various 
risk assessments to aid in the development of emergency preparedness 
and prevention plans, as well as real-time emergency response actions, 
for accidental chemical releases at fixed facilities and from transport 
carriers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ NAS, 2001. Standing Operating Procedures for Developing 
Acute Exposure Levels for Hazardous Chemicals, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AEGL-1 value is then specifically defined as ``the airborne 
concentration of a substance above which it is predicted that the 
general population, including susceptible individuals, could experience 
notable discomfort, irritation, or certain asymptomatic nonsensory 
effects. However, the effects are not disabling and are transient and 
reversible upon cessation of exposure.'' The document also notes (page 
3) that, ``Airborne concentrations below AEGL-1 represent exposure 
levels that can produce mild and progressively increasing but transient 
and nondisabling odor, taste, and sensory irritation or certain 
asymptomatic, nonsensory effects.'' Similarly, the document defines 
AEGL-2 values as ``the airborne concentration (expressed as parts per 
million or milligrams per cubic meter of a substance above which it is 
predicted that the general population, including susceptible 
individuals, could experience irreversible or other serious, long-
lasting adverse health effects or an impaired ability to escape.''
    ERPG values are derived for use in emergency response, as described 
in the American Industrial Hygiene Association's document entitled, 
Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPG) Procedures and 
Responsibilities (http://www.aiha.org/1documents/committees/ERPSOPs2006.pdf) which states that, ``Emergency Response Planning 
Guidelines were developed for emergency planning and are intended as 
health based guideline concentrations for single exposures to 
chemicals.'' \21\ The ERPG-1 value is defined as ``the maximum airborne 
concentration below which it is believed that nearly all individuals 
could be exposed for up to 1 hour without experiencing other than mild 
transient adverse health effects or without perceiving a clearly 
defined, objectionable odor.'' Similarly, the ERPG-2 value is defined 
as ``the maximum airborne concentration below which it is believed that 
nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to 1 hour without 
experiencing or

[[Page 72519]]

developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms 
which could impair an individual's ability to take protective action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ERP Committee Procedures and Responsibilities. November 1, 
2006. American Industrial Hygiene Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from the definitions above, the AEGL and ERPG values 
include the similarly-defined severity levels 1 and 2. For many 
chemicals, a severity level 1 value AEGL or ERPG has not been developed 
because the types of effects for these chemicals are not consistent 
with the AEGL-1/ERPG-1 definitions; in these instances, higher severity 
level AEGL-2 or ERPG-2 values are compared to our modeled exposure 
levels to screen for potential acute concerns. When AEGL-1/ERPG-1 
values are available, they are used in our acute risk assessments.
    Acute REL values for 1-hour exposure durations are typically lower 
than their corresponding AEGL-1 and ERPG-1 values. Even though their 
definitions are slightly different, AEGL-1 values are often the same as 
the corresponding ERPG-1 values, and AEGL-2 values are often equal to 
ERPG-2 values. Maximum HQ values from our acute screening risk 
assessments typically result when basing them on the acute REL value 
for a particular pollutant. In cases where our maximum acute HQ value 
exceeds 1, we also report the HQ value based on the next highest acute 
dose-response value (usually the AEGL-1 and/or the ERPG-1 value).
    To develop screening estimates of acute exposures in the absence of 
hourly emissions data, generally we first develop estimates of maximum 
hourly emissions rates by multiplying the average actual annual hourly 
emissions rates by a default factor to cover routinely variable 
emissions. For the Ferroalloys Production source category hourly 
emissions estimates were available for individual emissions points, so 
we did not use the default factor of 10. Using emission test data, 
hourly emission rates were developed for those processes considered to 
operate continuously (i.e., steady-state operations for 8,760 hours per 
year) and for those processes considered to operate intermittently 
(i.e., non-steady-state operations for less than 8,760 hours per year). 
A discussion of the hourly emissions estimates is provided in the 
Methodology for Estimation of Maximum Hourly Emissions for Ferroalloy 
Sources, which is available in the docket for this action.
    As part of our acute risk assessment process, for cases where acute 
HQ values from the screening step were less than or equal to 1, acute 
impacts were deemed negligible and no further analysis was performed. 
In cases where an acute HQ from the screening step was greater than 1, 
additional site-specific data were considered to develop a more refined 
estimate of the potential for acute impacts of concern. For this source 
category, the data refinements employed consisted of using the site-
specific facility layout to distinguish facility property from an area 
where the public could be exposed. These refinements are discussed in 
the draft risk assessment document, which is available in the docket 
for this source category. Ideally, we would prefer to have continuous 
measurements over time to see how the emissions vary by each hour over 
an entire year. Having a frequency distribution of hourly emission 
rates over a year would allow us to perform a probabilistic analysis to 
estimate potential threshold exceedances and their frequency of 
occurrence. Such an evaluation could include a more complete 
statistical treatment of the key parameters and elements adopted in 
this screening analysis. However, we recognize that having this level 
of data is rare, hence our use of the multiplier approach.
    To better characterize the potential health risks associated with 
estimated acute exposures to HAP, and in response to a key 
recommendation from the SAB's peer review of the EPA's RTR risk 
assessment methodologies,\22\ we generally examine a wider range of 
available acute health metrics (e.g., RELs, AEGLs) than we do for our 
chronic risk assessments. This is in response to the SAB's 
acknowledgement that there are generally more data gaps and 
inconsistencies in acute reference values than there are in chronic 
reference values. In some cases, when Reference Value Arrays \23\ for 
HAP have been developed, we consider additional acute values (i.e., 
occupational and international values) to provide a more complete risk 
characterization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The SAB peer review of RTR Assessment Methodologies is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf
    \23\ U.S. EPA. (2009) Chapter 2.9 Chemical Specific Reference 
Values for Formaldehyde in Graphical Arrays of Chemical-Specific 
Health Effect Referenhce Values for Inhalation Exposures (Final 
Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/r-09/061, and available on-line at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/dfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=211003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Conducting Multipathway Exposure and Risk Screening
    The potential for significant human health risks due to exposures 
via routes other than inhalation (i.e., multipathway exposures) and the 
potential for adverse environmental impacts were evaluated in a two-
step process. In the first step, we determined whether any facilities 
emitted any PB-HAP (HAP known to be persistent and bio-accumulative in 
the environment). There are 14 PB-HAP compounds or compound classes 
identified for this screening in the EPA's Air Toxics Risk Assessment 
Library (available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/fera/risk_atra_vol1.html). They are cadmium compounds, chlordane, chlorinated 
dibenzodioxins and furans, dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, 
heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane, lead compounds, 
mercury compounds, methoxychlor, polychlorinated biphenyls, POM, 
toxaphene and trifluralin.
    Because one or more of these PB-HAP are emitted by at least one 
facility in the source category, we proceeded to the second step of the 
evaluation. In this step, we determined whether the facility-specific 
emission rates of each of the emitted PB-HAP were large enough to 
create the potential for significant non-inhalation human or 
environmental risks under reasonable worst-case conditions. To 
facilitate this step, we have developed emission rate thresholds for 
each PB-HAP using a hypothetical worst-case screening exposure scenario 
developed for use in conjunction with the EPA's Total Risk Integrated 
Methodology.Fate, Transport, and Ecological Exposure (TRIM.FaTE) model. 
The hypothetical screening scenario was subjected to a sensitivity 
analysis to ensure that its key design parameters were established such 
that environmental media concentrations were not underestimated (i.e., 
to minimize the occurrence of false negatives or results that suggest 
that risks might be acceptable when, in fact, actual risks are high) 
and to also minimize the occurrence of false positives for human health 
endpoints. We call this application of the TRIM.FaTE model TRIM-Screen. 
The facility-specific emission rates of each of the PB-HAP in the 
source category were compared to the TRIM-Screen emission threshold 
values for each of the PB-HAP identified in the source category 
datasets to assess the potential for significant human health risks or 
environmental risks via non-inhalation pathways.
5. Assessing Risks Considering Emissions Control Options
    In addition to assessing baseline inhalation risks and screening 
for potential multipathway risks, we also estimated risks considering 
the potential emissions reductions that would be achieved by the main 
control options

[[Page 72520]]

under consideration. In these cases, the expected emissions reductions 
were applied to the specific HAP and emissions points in the source 
category dataset to develop corresponding estimates of risk reductions.
6. Conducting Other Risk-Related Analyses: Facilitywide Assessments
    To put the source category risks in context, we typically examine 
the risks from the entire ``facility,'' where the facility includes all 
HAP-emitting operations within a contiguous area and under common 
control. In other words, we examine the HAP emissions not only from the 
source category of interest, but also emissions of HAP from all other 
emissions sources at the facility for which we have data. However, for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category, there are no other 
significant HAP emissions sources operating at present. Thus, there was 
no need to perform a separate facility wide risk assessment.
7. Considering Uncertainties in Risk Assessment
    Uncertainty and the potential for bias are inherent in all risk 
assessments, including those performed for the source category 
addressed in this proposal. Although uncertainty exists, we believe 
that our approach, which used conservative tools and assumptions, 
ensures that our decisions are health-protective. A brief discussion of 
the uncertainties in the emissions dataset, dispersion modeling, 
inhalation exposure estimates and dose-response relationships follows 
below. A more thorough discussion of these uncertainties is included in 
the risk assessment documentation (Draft Residual Risk Assessment for 
the Ferroalloys Production Source Category) available in the docket for 
this action.
a. Uncertainties in the Emissions Dataset
    Although the development of the RTR dataset involved quality 
assurance/quality control processes, the accuracy of emissions values 
will vary depending on the source of the data, the degree to which data 
are incomplete or missing, the degree to which assumptions made to 
complete the datasets are accurate, errors were made in estimating 
emissions values and other factors. The emission estimates considered 
in this analysis generally are annual totals for certain years that do 
not reflect short-term fluctuations during the course of a year or 
variations from year to year.
    The estimates of peak hourly emissions rates from stacks for the 
acute effects screening assessment were based on actual maximum hourly 
emissions estimates for individual emission points, which is intended 
to account for emissions fluctuations due to normal facility 
operations.
b. Uncertainties in Dispersion Modeling
    While the analysis employed the EPA's recommended regulatory 
dispersion model, AERMOD, we recognize that there is uncertainty in 
ambient concentration estimates associated with any model, including 
AERMOD. In circumstances where we had to choose between various model 
options, where possible, model options (e.g., rural/urban, plume 
depletion, chemistry) were selected to provide an overestimate of 
ambient air concentrations of the HAP rather than underestimates. 
However, because of practicality and data limitation reasons, some 
factors (e.g., meteorology, building downwash) have the potential in 
some situations to overestimate or underestimate ambient impacts. For 
example, meteorological data were taken from a single year (1991) and 
facility locations can be a significant distance from the site where 
these data were taken. Despite these uncertainties, we believe that at 
off-site locations and census block centroids, the approach considered 
in the dispersion modeling analysis should generally yield 
overestimates of ambient HAP concentrations.
c. Uncertainties in Inhalation Exposure
    The effects of human mobility on exposures were not included in the 
assessment. Specifically, short-term mobility and long-term mobility 
between census blocks in the modeling domain were not considered.\24\ 
The assumption of not considering short or long-term population 
mobility does not bias the estimate of the theoretical MIR, nor does it 
affect the estimate of cancer incidence because the total population 
number remains the same. It does, however, affect the shape of the 
distribution of individual risks across the affected population, 
shifting it toward higher estimated individual risks at the upper end 
and reducing the number of people estimated to be at lower risks, 
thereby increasing the estimated number of people at specific high risk 
levels (e.g., one in 10,000 or one in one million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Short-term mobility is movement from one micro-environment 
to another over the course of hours or days. Long-term mobility is 
movement from one residence to another over the course of a 
lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the assessment predicted the chronic exposures at the 
centroid of each populated census block as surrogates for the exposure 
concentrations for all people living in that block. Using the census 
block centroid to predict chronic exposures tends to over-predict 
exposures for people in the census block who live farther from the 
facility and under-predict exposures for people in the census block who 
live closer to the facility. Thus, using the census block centroid to 
predict chronic exposures may lead to a potential understatement or 
overstatement of the true maximum impact, but is an unbiased estimate 
of average risk and incidence.
    The assessment evaluates the cancer inhalation risks associated 
with pollutant exposures over a 70-year period, which is the assumed 
lifetime of an individual. In reality, both the length of time that 
modeled emissions sources at facilities actually operate (i.e., more or 
less than 70 years), and the domestic growth or decline of the modeled 
industry (i.e., the increase or decrease in the number or size of 
United States facilities), will influence the future risks posed by a 
given source or source category. Depending on the characteristics of 
the industry, these factors will, in most cases, result in an 
overestimate both in individual risk levels and in the total estimated 
number of cancer cases. However, in rare cases, where a facility 
maintains or increases its emissions levels beyond 70 years, residents 
live beyond 70 years at the same location, and the residents spend most 
of their days at that location, then the risks could potentially be 
underestimated. Annual cancer incidence estimates from exposures to 
emissions from these sources would not be affected by uncertainty in 
the length of time emissions sources operate.
    The exposure estimates used in these analyses assume chronic 
exposures to ambient levels of pollutants. Because most people spend 
the majority of their time indoors, actual exposures may not be as 
high, depending on the characteristics of the pollutants modeled. For 
many of the HAP, indoor levels are roughly equivalent to ambient 
levels, but for very reactive pollutants or larger particles, these 
levels are typically lower. This factor has the potential to result in 
an overstatement of 25 to 30 percent of exposures.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ U.S. EPA. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment for 1996. 
(EPA 453/R-01-003; January 2001; page 85.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the uncertainties highlighted above, there are 
several factors specific to the acute exposure assessment that should 
be highlighted. The accuracy of an acute inhalation exposure assessment 
depends on the simultaneous occurrence of

[[Page 72521]]

independent factors that may vary greatly, such as hourly emissions 
rates, meteorology, and human activity patterns. In this assessment, we 
assume that individuals remain for 1 hour at the point of maximum 
ambient concentration as determined by the co-occurrence of peak 
emissions and worst-case meteorological conditions. These assumptions 
would tend to be worst-case actual exposures as it is unlikely that a 
person would be located at the point of maximum exposure during the 
time of worst-case impact.
d. Uncertainties in Dose-Response Relationships
    There are uncertainties inherent in the development of the dose-
response values used in our risk assessments for cancer effects from 
chronic exposures and non-cancer effects from both chronic and acute 
exposures. Some uncertainties may be considered quantitatively, and 
others generally are expressed in qualitative terms. We note as a 
preface to this discussion a point on dose-response uncertainty that is 
brought out in the EPA's 2005 Cancer Guidelines; namely, that ``the 
primary goal of EPA actions is protection of human health; accordingly, 
as an Agency policy, risk assessment procedures, including default 
options that are used in the absence of scientific data to the 
contrary, should be health protective'' (EPA 2005 Cancer Guidelines, 
pages 1-7). This is the approach followed here as summarized in the 
next several paragraphs. A complete detailed discussion of 
uncertainties and variability in dose-response relationships is given 
in the residual risk documentation which is available in the docket for 
this action.
    Cancer URE values used in our risk assessments are those that have 
been developed to generally provide an upper bound estimate of risk. 
That is, they represent a ``plausible upper limit to the true value of 
a quantity'' (although this is usually not a true statistical 
confidence limit).\26\ In some circumstances, the true risk could be as 
low as zero; however, in other circumstances the risk could be 
greater.\27\ When developing an upper bound estimate of risk and to 
provide risk values that do not underestimate risk, health-protective 
default approaches are generally used. To err on the side of ensuring 
adequate health protection, the EPA typically uses the upper bound 
estimates rather than lower bound or central tendency estimates in our 
risk assessments, an approach that may have limitations for other uses 
(e.g., priority-setting or expected benefits analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ IRIS glossary (http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/help_gloss.htm).
    \27\ An exception to this is the URE for benzene, which is 
considered to cover a range of values, each end of which is 
considered to be equally plausible, and which is based on maximum 
likelihood estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chronic non-cancer reference (RfC) and reference dose (RfD) values 
represent chronic exposure levels that are intended to be health-
protective levels. Specifically, these values provide an estimate (with 
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous 
inhalation exposure (RfC) or a daily oral exposure (RfD) to the human 
population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without 
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. To derive 
values that are intended to be ``without appreciable risk,'' the 
methodology relies upon an uncertainty factor (UF) approach (U.S. EPA, 
1993, 1994) which considers uncertainty, variability and gaps in the 
available data. The UF are applied to derive reference values that are 
intended to protect against appreciable risk of deleterious effects. 
The UF are commonly default values,\28\ e.g., factors of 10 or 3, used 
in the absence of compound-specific data; where data are available, UF 
may also be developed using compound-specific information. When data 
are limited, more assumptions are needed and more UF are used. Thus, 
there may be a greater tendency to overestimate risk in the sense that 
further study might support development of reference values that are 
higher (i.e., less potent) because fewer default assumptions are 
needed. However, for some pollutants, it is possible that risks may be 
underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ According to the NRC report, Science and Judgment in Risk 
Assessment (NRC, 1994) ``[Default] options are generic approaches, 
based on general scientific knowledge and policy judgment, that are 
applied to various elements of the risk assessment process when the 
correct scientific model is unknown or uncertain.'' The 1983 NRC 
report, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the 
Process, defined default option as ``the option chosen on the basis 
of risk assessment policy that appears to be the best choice in the 
absence of data to the contrary'' (NRC, 1983a, p. 63). Therefore, 
default options are not rules that bind the Agency; rather, the 
Agency may depart from them in evaluating the risks posed by a 
specific substance when it believes this to be appropriate. In 
keeping with EPA's goal of protecting public health and the 
environment, default assumptions are used to ensure that risk to 
chemicals is not underestimated (although defaults are not intended 
to overtly overestimate risk). See EPA, 2004, An Examination of EPA 
Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, EPA/100/B-04/001 available 
at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While collectively termed ``UF,'' these factors account for a 
number of different quantitative considerations when using observed 
animal (usually rodent) or human toxicity data in the development of 
the RfC. The UF are intended to account for: (1) Variation in 
susceptibility among the members of the human population (i.e., inter-
individual variability); (2) uncertainty in extrapolating from 
experimental animal data to humans (i.e., interspecies differences); 
(3) uncertainty in extrapolating from data obtained in a study with 
less-than-lifetime exposure (i.e., extrapolating from sub-chronic to 
chronic exposure); (4) uncertainty in extrapolating the observed data 
to obtain an estimate of the exposure associated with no adverse 
effects; and (5) uncertainty when the database is incomplete or there 
are problems with the applicability of available studies. Many of the 
UF used to account for variability and uncertainty in the development 
of acute reference values are quite similar to those developed for 
chronic durations, but they more often use individual UF values that 
may be less than 10. The UF are applied based on chemical-specific or 
health effect-specific information (e.g., simple irritation effects do 
not vary appreciably between human individuals, hence a value of 3 is 
typically used), or based on the purpose for the reference value (see 
the following paragraph). The UF applied in acute reference value 
derivation include: (1) Heterogeneity among humans; (2) uncertainty in 
extrapolating from animals to humans; (3) uncertainty in lowest 
observed adverse effect (exposure) level to no observed adverse effect 
(exposure) level adjustments; and (4) uncertainty in accounting for an 
incomplete database on toxic effects of potential concern. Additional 
adjustments are often applied to account for uncertainty in 
extrapolation from observations at one exposure duration (e.g., 4 
hours) to derive an acute reference value at another exposure duration 
(e.g., 1 hour).
    Not all acute reference values are developed for the same purpose 
and care must be taken when interpreting the results of an acute 
assessment of human health effects relative to the reference value or 
values being exceeded. Where relevant to the estimated exposures, the 
lack of short-term dose-response values at different levels of severity 
should be factored into the risk characterization as potential 
uncertainties.
    Although every effort is made to identify peer-reviewed reference 
values for cancer and noncancer effects for all pollutants emitted by 
the sources included in this assessment, some HAP continue to have no 
reference values for cancer or chronic noncancer or acute

[[Page 72522]]

effects. Because exposures to these pollutants cannot be included in a 
quantitative risk estimate, an understatement of risk for these 
pollutants at environmental exposure levels is possible. For a group of 
compounds that are either unspeciated or do not have reference values 
for every individual compound (e.g., glycol ethers), we conservatively 
use the most protective reference value to estimate risk from 
individual compounds in the group of compounds.
    Additionally, chronic reference values for several of the compounds 
included in this assessment are currently under the EPA IRIS review and 
revised assessments may determine that these pollutants are more or 
less potent than the current value. We may re-evaluate residual risks 
for the final rulemaking if these reviews are completed prior to our 
taking final action for this source category and a dose-response metric 
changes enough to indicate that the risk assessment supporting this 
notice may significantly understate human health risk.
e. Uncertainties in the Multipathway and Environmental Effects 
Assessment
    We generally assume that when exposure levels are not anticipated 
to adversely affect human health, they also are not anticipated to 
adversely affect the environment. For each source category, we 
generally rely on the site-specific levels of PB-HAP emissions to 
determine whether a full assessment of the multipathway and 
environmental effects is necessary. Our screening methods use worst-
case scenarios to determine whether multipathway impacts might be 
important. The results of such a process are biased high for the 
purpose of screening out potential impacts. Thus, when individual 
pollutants or facilities screen out, we are confident that the 
potential for multipathway impacts is negligible. On the other hand, 
when individual pollutants or facilities do not screen out, it does not 
mean that multipollutant impacts are significant, only that we cannot 
rule out that possibility.

C. How did we consider the risk results in making decisions for this 
proposal?

    In evaluating and developing standards under section 112(f)(2), as 
discussed in section I.B of this preamble, we apply a two-step process 
to address residual risk. In the first step, the EPA determines whether 
risks are acceptable. This determination ``considers all health 
information, including risk estimation uncertainty, and includes a 
presumptive limit on maximum individual lifetime [cancer] risk (MIR) 
\29\ of approximately one in 10 thousand [i.e., 100 in one million]'' 
(54 FR 38045). In the second step of the process, the EPA sets the 
standard at a level that provides an ample margin of safety ``in 
consideration of all health information, including the number of 
persons at risk levels higher than approximately one in one million, as 
well as other relevant factors, including costs and economic impacts, 
technological feasibility, and other factors relevant to each 
particular decision.'' (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers 
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is 
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level 
of a pollutant for a lifetime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In past residual risk actions, the EPA has presented and considered 
a number of human health risk metrics associated with emissions from 
the category under review, including: the MIR; the numbers of persons 
in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-cancer HI; 
and the maximum acute non-cancer hazard (72 FR 25138, May 3, 2007; 71 
FR 42724, July 27, 2006). In most recent proposals (75 FR 65068, 
October 21, 2010; 75 FR 80220, December 21, 2010; and 76 FR 29032, May 
19, 2011), the EPA also presented and considered additional measures of 
health information, such as estimates of the risks associated with the 
maximum level of emissions which might be allowed by the current MACT 
standards (see, e.g., 75 FR 65068, October 21, 2010 and 75 FR 80220, 
December 21, 2010). The EPA also discussed and considered risk 
estimation uncertainties. The EPA is providing this same type of 
information in support of the proposed actions described in this 
Federal Register notice.
    The Agency is considering all available health information to 
inform our determinations of risk acceptability and ample margin of 
safety under CAA section 112(f). Specifically, as explained in the 
Benzene NESHAP, ``the first step judgment on acceptability cannot be 
reduced to any single factor'' and thus ``[t]he Administrator believes 
that the acceptability of risk under [previous] section 112 is best 
judged on the basis of a broad set of health risk measures and 
information'' (54 FR 38046). Similarly, with regard to making the ample 
margin of safety determination, as stated in the Benzene NESHAP ``[in 
the ample margin decision, the Agency again considers all of the health 
risk and other health information considered in the first step. Beyond 
that information, additional factors relating to the appropriate level 
of control will also be considered, including cost and economic impacts 
of controls, technological feasibility, uncertainties, and any other 
relevant factors.'' Id.
    The Agency acknowledges that the Benzene NESHAP provides 
flexibility regarding what factors the EPA might consider in making 
determinations and how these factors might be weighed for each source 
category. In responding to comment on our policy under the Benzene 
NESHAP, the EPA explained that: ``The policy chosen by the 
Administrator permits consideration of multiple measures of health 
risk. Not only can the MIR figure be considered, but also incidence, 
the presence of non-cancer health effects, and the uncertainties of the 
risk estimates. In this way, the effect on the most exposed individuals 
can be reviewed as well as the impact on the general public. These 
factors can then be weighed in each individual case. This approach 
complies with the Vinyl Chloride mandate that the Administrator 
ascertain an acceptable level of risk to the public by employing [her] 
expertise to assess available data. It also complies with the 
Congressional intent behind the CAA, which did not exclude the use of 
any particular measure of public health risk from the EPA's 
consideration with respect to CAA section 112 regulations, and, 
thereby, implicitly permits consideration of any and all measures of 
health risk which the Administrator, in [her] judgment, believes are 
appropriate to determining what will `protect the public health' '' (54 
FR at 38057).
    Thus, the level of the MIR is only one factor to be weighed in 
determining acceptability of risks. The Benzene NESHAP explained that 
``an MIR of approximately one in 10 thousand should ordinarily be the 
upper end of the range of acceptability. As risks increase above this 
benchmark, they become presumptively less acceptable under CAA section 
112, and would be weighed with the other health risk measures and 
information in making an overall judgment on acceptability. Or, the 
Agency may find, in a particular case, that a risk that includes MIR 
less than the presumptively acceptable level is unacceptable in the 
light of other health risk factors'' (Id. at 38045). Similarly, with 
regard to the ample margin of safety analysis, the EPA stated in the 
Benzene NESHAP that: ``* * * EPA believes the relative weight of the 
many factors that can be considered in selecting an ample margin of 
safety can only be determined for each specific source category. This 
occurs mainly because technological and economic factors (along with 
the health-related factors) vary from source category to source 
category'' (Id. at 38061).

[[Page 72523]]

    The EPA wishes to point out that certain health information has not 
been considered to date in making residual risk determinations. In 
assessing risks to populations in the vicinity of the facilities in 
each category, we present estimates of risk associated with HAP 
emissions from the source category alone (source category risk 
estimates), and generally we have also assessed risks due to HAP 
emissions from the entire facility at which the covered source category 
is located (facilitywide risk estimates). We have not, however, 
attempted to characterize the risks associated with all HAP emissions 
impacting the populations living near the sources in these categories. 
That is, at this time, we do not attempt to quantify those HAP risks 
that may be associated with emissions from other facilities that do not 
include the source categories in question, mobile source emissions, 
natural source emissions, persistent environmental pollution, or 
atmospheric transformation in the vicinity of the sources in these 
categories.
    The Agency understands the potential importance of considering an 
individual's total exposure to HAP in addition to considering exposure 
to HAP emissions from the source category and facility. This is 
particularly important when assessing non-cancer risks, where 
pollutant-specific exposure health reference levels (e.g., RfCs) are 
based on the assumption that thresholds exist for adverse health 
effects. For example, the Agency recognizes that, although exposures 
attributable to emissions from a source category or facility alone may 
not indicate the potential for increased risk of adverse non-cancer 
health effects in a population, the exposures resulting from emissions 
from the facility in combination with emissions from all of the other 
sources (e.g., other facilities) to which an individual is exposed may 
be sufficient to result in increased risk of adverse non-cancer health 
effects. In May 2010, the EPA SAB advised us ``* * * that RTR 
assessments will be most useful to decision makers and communities if 
results are presented in the broader context of aggregate and 
cumulative risks, including background concentrations and contributions 
from other sources in the area.'' \30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ EPA's responses to this and all other key recommendations 
of the SAB's advisory on RTR risk assessment methodologies (which is 
available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
4AB3966E263D943A8525771F00668381/$File/EPA-SAB-10-007-unsigned.pdf) 
are outlined in a memo to this rulemaking docket from David Guinnup 
entitled, EPA's Actions in Response to the Key Recommendations of 
the SAB Review of RTR Risk Assessment Methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although we are interested in placing source category and 
facilitywide HAP risks in the context of total HAP risks from all 
sources combined in the vicinity of each source, we are concerned about 
the uncertainties of doing so. At this point, we believe that such 
estimates of total HAP risks will have significantly greater associated 
uncertainties than for the source category or facilitywide estimates, 
and hence would compound the uncertainty in any such comparison. This 
is because we have not conducted a detailed technical review of HAP 
emissions data for source categories and facilities that have not 
previously undergone an RTR review or are not currently undergoing such 
review. We are requesting comment on whether and how best to estimate 
and evaluate total HAP exposure in our assessments, and, in particular, 
on whether and how it might be appropriate to use information from the 
EPA's NATA to support such estimates. We are also seeking comment on 
how best to consider various types and scales of risk estimates when 
making our acceptability and ample margin of safety determinations 
under CAA section 112(f).

D. How did we perform the technology review?

    Our technology review focused on the identification and evaluation 
of developments in practices, processes, and control technologies that 
have occurred since the 1999 NESHAP was promulgated. In cases where the 
technology review identified such developments, we conducted an 
analysis of the technical feasibility of applying these developments, 
along with the estimated impacts (costs, emissions reductions, risk 
reductions, etc.) of applying these developments. We then made 
decisions on whether it is necessary to propose amendments to the 1999 
NESHAP to require any of the identified developments.
    Based on our analyses of the data and information collected by the 
ICR and our general understanding of the industry and other available 
information on potential controls for this industry, we identified 
several potential developments in practices, processes, and control 
technologies. For the purpose of this exercise, we considered any of 
the following to be a ``development'':
     Any add-on control technology or other equipment that was 
not identified and considered during development of the 1999 NESHAP.
     Any improvements in add-on control technology or other 
equipment (that were identified and considered during development of 
the 1999 NESHAP) that could result in significant additional emissions 
reduction.
     Any work practice or operational procedure that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 1999 NESHAP.
     Any process change or pollution prevention alternative 
that could be broadly applied to the industry and that was not 
identified or considered during development of the 1999 NESHAP.
    In addition to reviewing the practices, processes, or control 
technologies that were not considered at the time we developed the 1999 
NESHAP, we reviewed a variety of data sources in our evaluation of 
whether there were additional practices, processes, or controls to 
consider for the Ferroalloys Production industry. Among the data 
sources we reviewed were the NESHAP for various industries that were 
promulgated after the 1999 NESHAP. We reviewed the regulatory 
requirements and/or technical analyses associated with these regulatory 
actions to identify any practices, processes, and control technologies 
considered in these efforts that could possibly be applied to emissions 
sources in the Ferroalloys Production source category, as well as the 
costs, non-air impacts, and energy implications associated with the use 
of these technologies.
    Additionally, we requested information from facilities regarding 
developments in practices, processes, or control technology. Finally, 
we reviewed other information sources, such as State or local 
permitting agency databases and industry-supported databases.

E. What other issues are we addressing in this proposal?

    In addition to the analyses described above, we also reviewed other 
aspects of the MACT standards for possible revision as appropriate and 
necessary. Based on this review we have identified aspects of the MACT 
standards that we believe need revision. This includes proposing 
revisions to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) provisions of 
the MACT rule in order to ensure that they are consistent with a recent 
court decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008). In 
addition, we are proposing various other changes to monitoring and 
testing requirements to ensure that this rule includes the measures 
needed to ensure continuous compliance at major sources subject to the 
revised NESHAP for the Ferroalloys Production source category.

[[Page 72524]]

Our analyses and proposed decisions related to SSM and other testing 
and reporting requirements for this source category are presented in 
section IV.E of this preamble.

IV. Analytical Results and Proposed Decisions

    This section of the preamble provides the results of our review of 
the MACT rule including the RTR for the Ferroalloys Production source 
category and our proposed decisions concerning changes to the 1999 
NESHAP.

A. What are the results of our analyses and proposed decisions 
regarding unregulated pollutants?

    In this section, we describe how we addressed unregulated 
emissions, including how we calculate MACT floors, how we account for 
variability in those floor calculations, and how we consider beyond the 
floor options. As described previously, the CAA section 112(d) requires 
the EPA to promulgate national technology-based emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for listed source categories, 
including this source category. For more information on this analysis, 
see the Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category which is available in the docket for this proposed action. 
Based on the ICR data that we collected, we conducted a MACT Floor 
analysis.
    Section 112(d)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that the MACT standards 
for existing sources be at least as stringent as the average emissions 
limitation achieved by the best performing five sources (for which the 
Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in 
a category with fewer than 30 sources. The Ferroalloy Production source 
category consists of fewer than 30 sources. Where, as here, there are 
five or fewer sources, we base the MACT floor limit on the average 
emissions limitation achieved by those sources for which we have data.
    The EPA must exercise its judgment, based on an evaluation of the 
relevant factors and available data, to determine the level of 
emissions control that has been achieved by the best performing sources 
under variable conditions. It is recognized in the case law that the 
EPA may consider variability in estimating the degree of emissions 
reduction achieved by best-performing sources and in setting MACT 
floors. See Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1241-42 
(DC Cir 2004) (holding the EPA may consider emissions variability in 
estimating performance achieved by best-performing sources and may set 
the floor at a level that a best-performing source can expect to meet 
``every day and under all operating conditions'').
    With regard to data used to determine the MACT limits, we received 
detailed emissions data for multiple HAP from one furnace and one 
crushing system baghouse at each plant (collected at the outlet of the 
control device) based on an ICR sent to the two companies in 2010. We 
are soliciting additional emissions data for the operating furnaces and 
crushing system baghouses for which we do not have data and any other 
emissions sources at ferroalloys production facilities including 
available information on the quantity and composition of process 
fugitive emissions.
1. Mercury Emissions
    The raw materials used to produce ferroalloys contain various 
amounts of mercury, which is emitted during the smelting process. These 
mercury emissions are derived primarily from the manganese ore although 
there may be trace amounts in the coke or coal used in the smelting 
process. While some of the mercury that is in particulate or oxidized 
forms is captured by the particulate control devices, the more volatile 
elemental mercury is largely emitted to the atmosphere. We found that 
mercury emissions are emitted from the furnaces as measured during the 
ICR test program (estimated to be 540 pounds per year (lb/yr) at one 
plant and 140 lb/yr at the other plant). Pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to 
include emission limits for mercury.
    As discussed above, the MACT floor limit is calculated based on the 
average performance of the units in each category plus an amount to 
account for these units' variability. To account for variability in the 
operation and emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 
average emissions and the 99 percent upper predictive limit (UPL) to 
derive the MACT floor limit. For more information on how we calculated 
the MACT floors and other emission limits, see the Ferroalloys 
Production MACT Floor Analysis document, which is available in the 
docket.
    Using this method, the MACT floor (or 99 percent UPL) for exhaust 
mercury concentrations from existing furnaces is 80 [micro]g/dscm at 2 
percent carbon dioxide (CO2). This MACT floor limit is 
higher than the actual emissions measured during the ICR performance 
tests at each plant. Therefore, we anticipate that both of the existing 
sources would be able to meet this limit without installing additional 
controls.
    With regard to new sources, as described above, the MACT floor for 
new sources cannot be less stringent than the emissions performance 
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. A 
variability analysis similar to that used for existing sources was then 
performed to calculate a 99 percent UPL using the three run test data 
from the top source. For this source category, we calculate that the 
UPL MACT floor limit for new sources is 16 [micro]g/dscm at 2 percent 
CO2. This limit is based on the performance of the best 
performing source.
    The next step in establishing MACT standards is the beyond the 
floor analysis. In this step, we investigate other mechanisms for 
further reducing HAP emissions that are more stringent than the MACT 
floor level of control in order to ``require the maximum degree of 
reduction in emissions'' of HAP. In setting such standards, section 
112(d)(2) requires the Agency to consider the cost of achieving the 
additional emission reductions, any non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts, and energy requirements. Historically, these 
factors have included factors such as solid waste impacts of a control, 
effects of emissions on bodies of water, as well as the energy impacts.
    As described below, we considered beyond-the-floor control options 
to further reduce emissions of mercury. Because of our limited data 
set, we considered setting a MACT limit for existing sources based on 
the performance of the best performing source (i.e., based upon the 
test data used to calculate the MACT floor for new sources) such that 
the MACT limit for existing sources would be the same as the UPL MACT 
limit for new sources (i.e., 16 [micro]g/dscm). Under this option, the 
best performing source would need no additional controls to meet the 
limit, since their current performance defines the new source limit. 
With regard to the other facility in the source category, as described 
below, we believe this limit could be achieved by the addition of an 
activated carbon injection system, which is a proven technology for 
mercury control. Compliance would be demonstrated by periodic 
performance testing and continuous parameter monitoring.
    In evaluating a beyond the floor option, we evaluate, among other 
things, the costs of achieving additional emission reductions beyond 
the floor level of control. No facilities in the source category use 
add-on control devices or work practices to limit mercury emissions 
beyond what is

[[Page 72525]]

achieved as co-control of the emissions with the particulate matter 
control device. However, we identified both carbon bed technology and 
activated carbon injection as commercially available mercury emission 
reduction techniques. Carbon bed technology (which is one of the 
primary control devices used at Industrial Gold Production facilities 
in the U.S. to minimize mercury emissions, as described in the proposed 
rule for that category \31\) does not appear to be a viable technology 
to control the large volumes of airflow generated by the electric arc 
furnaces in the Ferroalloys Production source category. The carbon bed 
technology is applicable to gas streams with low volumes of airflow, 
and is characterized with relatively high pressure drops. Accordingly 
this technology is not used in industries with high volumes of airflow, 
such as industrial boilers and power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Gold Mine Ore Processing and Production Area Source Category. 
Proposed Rule (75 FR 22470);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, activated carbon injection has been used to control 
mercury emissions at various types of facilities that have large 
volumes of airflow including some coal-fired power plants, waste 
incinerators and cement kilns. Based on available information, 
activated carbon injection appears to be a technologically feasible 
control for mercury for these larger volume combustion sources. Mercury 
reductions of up to 90 or 95 percent have been reported at these other 
sources and should also be achievable at ferroalloys production 
facilities. Based on data and information on these mercury controls for 
other combustion sources (such as utility boilers, incinerators and 
cement kilns), and based on our experience with these controls, we 
conclude that activated carbon injection is a viable control technology 
for the Ferroalloys Production source category.
    Activated carbon injection can be installed upstream or downstream 
of an existing particulate matter control device. In cases where a 
source is concerned about potential impacts of waste carbon on the 
source's waste stream and resulting disposal options or the ability to 
sell or reuse baghouse dust, the source can install the activated 
carbon injection downstream of the particulate matter control device 
with a separate polishing baghouse to collect the carbon. In other 
cases, the source can install the activated carbon injection upstream 
of the particulate matter control device and use the existing 
particulate control device to remove the carbon from the airstream.
    We reviewed facility specific control options that included putting 
the mercury controls downstream of the existing furnace baghouse to 
avoid the potential issues with sale or reuse of baghouse dust 
associated with upstream controls. Under this scenario, the activated 
carbon injection system would be followed by a ``polishing'' baghouse 
to capture the activated carbon for disposal. In the case of the 
existing furnace scrubber, we assumed the source could put the 
activated carbon injection system upstream of the scrubber, the carbon 
would be captured by the scrubber and the resulting sludge treated 
according to the existing treatment process at the plant. Based on 
discussion \32\ with a vendor and other control technology experts, we 
do not believe that the resulting carbon waste in either scenario would 
trigger waste disposal concerns. We request comment on these 
assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Conversation with D. Lipscomb, Albemarle. August 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that under this beyond the floor option described above 
(i.e., a proposed limit of 16 [micro]g/dscm), that one facility would 
need to install additional controls such as activated carbon injection 
to meet this limit, and that this would achieve about 420 pounds of 
reduction per year in mercury emissions. The capital costs are 
estimated to be $1.7 million, annualized capital and operating costs to 
be $1.4 million, with an overall cost-effectiveness of $3,300 per 
pound. The general range of costs for mercury controls from other MACT 
rules has been about $1,250 to $55,200 per pound of mercury removed (76 
FR 25075, May 3, 2011). The EPA requests information on other control 
technologies available to Ferroalloys Production manufacturers to 
reduce mercury emissions. Other controls might include process changes, 
substitution of materials, collection or enclosure systems, work 
practices, or combinations of such methods; which reduce the volume of 
mercury emissions from existing sources.
    It is important to note that there is no bright line for 
determining cost-effectiveness. Each rulemaking is different and 
various factors must be considered. Nevertheless, the cost-
effectiveness of mercury controls in this proposed rule for Ferroalloys 
Production is near the lower end of the range. Some of the factors we 
consider in determining the costs of control technologies under section 
112(d)(2) include, but are not limited to the following: total capital 
costs; annual costs; and costs compared to total revenues (e.g., costs 
to revenue ratios). Other factors besides cost are considered into our 
decision. For example, whether the standards significantly impact one 
or more small businesses, whether the controls would significantly 
impact production, and whether, and to what extent, the controls result 
in adverse impacts to other media (e.g., hazardous waste issues). We 
propose that these mercury controls are feasible for the Ferroalloys 
Production source category from a technical standpoint and are cost 
effective. We are proposing a MACT standard for mercury emissions of 16 
[micro]g/dscm for both existing and new sources under the authority of 
sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3). To meet this proposed limit, we have 
preliminarily determined that activated carbon injection is feasible to 
implement for the Ferroalloys Production source category from a 
technical standpoint and that control costs fall within the range of 
other mercury controls in other MACT rules. More information regarding 
how the MACT standards were calculated and the costs is provided in 
Ferroalloys Production MACT Floor and Cost Memos, which are available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    We are requesting comment on the proposed standard of 16 [micro]g/
dscm for mercury. We also seek comments and information on our 
conclusion that activated carbon injection technology to meet the 
mercury emissions limit for this source category is technically and 
economically feasible. Moreover, we seek comments on the factors 
related to costs and economics (such as those described in the 
paragraph above) regarding the feasibility and costs of activated 
carbon injection for this industry. We also seek comments on other 
possible controls that could be effective to reduce mercury emissions 
beyond the floor, including the amount and cost of the resulting 
emissions reductions. Furthermore, we seek comment on whether work 
practices to minimize mercury emissions, such as switching to manganese 
ores with low mercury content, could be technically and economically 
feasible.
    Moreover, we request comment on whether there is a basis to 
subcategorize manganese production operations for mercury. For example, 
is there a basis on which to subcategorize ferromanganese production 
and silicomanganese production processes? Although we are requesting 
comment on subcategorization, we do not believe that subcategorization 
would have any substantive effect on the resulting standards or the 
costs of controls since

[[Page 72526]]

there would be no change in the costs and feasibility of mercury 
controls evaluated for these sources.
    We are proposing that any source installing activated carbon 
injection would be required to continuously monitor the carbon 
injection rate into the airstream being controlled. We request comment 
on the level of variability in the carbon injection rate that should be 
allowed, and what percent decrease in the rate should be considered 
significant.
    We also propose that sources monitor the mercury content in the 
manganese ore. Specifically, we propose that the determination of a 
significant increase in mercury content would be that the 12-month 
rolling weighted average mercury concentration based on monthly 
sampling in the manganese ore increases by 10 percent or more compared 
to the baseline weighted average mercury concentration. If that limit 
is exceeded, the source would be required to readjust the carbon 
injection rate as specified in the source's monitoring plan or retest 
within 30 days if there is not a dedicated mercury control device. If a 
new ore is added, sampling would be required as well.
    We request comment on this ore monitoring provision. We are 
especially interested in any data that would show the variability in 
mercury concentration between different ore samples from the same 
location and the variability of the types of ores used in manganese 
production. If ore type and mercury content are demonstrated to be 
stable, we might consider reducing the frequency of sampling/
calculations to quarterly or less.
2. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
    PAH emissions are products of incomplete combustion from the 
smelting operation, and a subset of the listed HAP POM. Some of these 
emissions are likely to be in particulate form, but a significant 
portion is expected to be in a gaseous form. Therefore, the existing 
particulate matter control devices only achieve partial control of 
these compounds. No existing facilities in the source category control 
PAH or use work practices to limit emissions of PAH emissions 
specifically. However, under today's proposal, these pollutants would 
be controlled with the same activated carbon injection technology as 
mercury. Because of this, emission reductions could be achieved via co-
control at no additional costs. Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include an 
emission limit for PAH.
    We have stack test data from only one furnace for PAH emissions. As 
such, the MACT floor would be based on the performance level achieved 
at that furnace (i.e., the average emissions of that furnace plus an 
amount to account for variability). Based on these data and applying 
the 99 percent UPL, we calculate that the MACT floor limit for PAHs 
would be 887 [micro]g/dscm. We also evaluated control performance that 
could be achieved via co-control of mercury emissions with activated 
carbon injection as a beyond-the-floor option. Based on information 
from carbon vendors, an activated carbon system that is designed to 
achieve a 90 percent reduction in mercury emissions (which we expect 
would be applied to meet the proposed mercury standard discussed above) 
should also achieve a high degree of reduction in PAH with no 
additional costs. Assuming a 90 percent reduction from the calculated 
99 percent UPL of 887 [micro]g/dscm, the resulting limit would be 89 
[micro]g/dscm. Thus, a proposed limit for PAHs of 89 [micro]g/dscm 
could be achieved with the same controls needed for mercury with no 
additional costs.
    Therefore, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), we are 
proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include an emission limit for 
PAH of 89 [micro]g/dscm for new and existing sources.
3. Hydrochloric acid
    Hydrochloric acid (HCl) is a product of combustion, and the level 
of emissions is dictated by the chlorine content of the coal or coke 
used as a reducing agent in the smelting process. Based on test data 
from the ICR, we estimate that the two facilities in this source 
category emit 6 to 11 tpy of HCl. While these levels of emissions are 
nontrivial, they are relatively low compared to some other types of 
combustion sources. The primary reason for this is that manganese 
producers use coke instead of coal as the primary reducing agent in the 
smelting operation. Because coke is a refined product, much of the 
original chlorine content in the coal is removed in the coking process, 
which greatly reduces potential emissions. Second, one of the five 
furnaces at these plants is equipped with a scrubber, which provides 
co-control of particulate matter and HCl emissions. Notwithstanding the 
relatively low HCl emissions from facilities in this source category, 
section 112(d) requires us to set MACT for HAP emitted from the source 
category. Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are 
proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include emission limits for HCl.
    As discussed above, the MACT floor limit is calculated based on the 
average performance of the units in each category plus an amount to 
account for these units' variability. To account for variability in the 
operation and emissions, the stack test data were used to calculate the 
average emissions and the 99 percent UPL to derive the MACT floor 
limit. However, a number (50 percent) of the individual data points 
were reported as below the applicable test detection limits.\33\ The 
following discussion describes how we handle such data in our MACT 
calculations. Also, as described below, we request comment on how this 
uncertainty might influence establishing an emission limit instead of a 
work practice standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ We conducted this analysis for all measured pollutant 
according to the following method when non detects were reported. 
However only the hydrochloric acid and formaldehyde data needed a 
detection limit correction to adequately account for variability, as 
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test method measurement imprecision is a contributor to the 
variability of a set of emissions data. One element is associated with 
method detection capabilities and a second is a function of the 
measurement value. Measurement imprecision is proportionally highest 
for values measured below or near a method's detection level and 
proportionally lower for values measured above the method detection 
level.
    The probability procedures applied in calculating the MACT floor or 
beyond the floor emissions limit inherently and reasonably account for 
emissions data variability including measurement imprecision when the 
database represents multiple tests from multiple emissions units for 
which all of the data are measured significantly above the method 
detection level. This is less true when the database includes some 
emissions occurring below method detection capabilities that are 
reported as the method detection level values.
    The EPA's guidance to facilities for reporting pollutant emissions 
in response to the ICR data collection specified the criteria for 
determining test-specific method detection levels. Those criteria 
ensure that there is only about a 1 percent probability of an error in 
deciding that the pollutant measured at the method detection level is 
present when in fact it was absent. Such a probability is also called a 
false positive or an alpha, Type I, error. Because of sample and 
emissions matrix effects, laboratory techniques, sample size, and other 
factors, method detection levels normally vary from test to test for 
any specific test method and pollutant measurement. The expected

[[Page 72527]]

measurement imprecision is 40 to 50 percent or greater at levels 
measured at the method detection level or less. The expected 
measurement imprecision decreases to 10 to 15 percent for values 
measured at a level about three times the method detection level or 
greater.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Reference Method 
Accuracy and Precision (ReMAP): Phase 1, Precision of Manual Stack 
Emission Measurements, CRTD Vol. 60, February 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also in accordance with our guidance, source owners identified 
emissions data which were measured below the method detection level and 
reported those values as equal to the method detection level as 
determined for that test. An effect of reporting data in this manner is 
that the resulting database is somewhat truncated at the lower end of 
the measurement range (i.e., no values reported below the test-specific 
method detection level). A MACT floor or beyond the floor emissions 
limit based on a truncated database or otherwise including values 
measured near the method detection level may not adequately account for 
measurement imprecision contribution to the data variability.
    We applied the following procedures to account for the effect of 
measurement imprecision associated with a database that includes method 
detection level data. The following process also addresses the concerns 
associated with use of a small data set, such as the Ferroalloys 
Production data set for HCl. As a first step, we reviewed an HCl 
emissions data set for the industrial boilers rule, which represents 
several hundred emissions tests used in the floor calculations (i.e., 
best performers) for the boilers rule to determine typical method 
detection levels. We have data from multiple industrial boilers tests 
and used those data to confirm that method detection levels that 
testers reported were as good as or better (i.e., lower) than the 
values reported in the method. We presume that data for the best 
performing units also reflect the capabilities of high quality testing 
companies and laboratories. Further, the method detection levels 
calculated from larger data sets are more representative of the 
inherent measurement variability both within and between testing 
companies than the limited Ferroalloys Production dataset. We believe 
that emissions tests conducted with these methods for most combustion 
operations (e.g., fossil fuel, biomass, and waste fired units; brick 
and clay kilns; Portland cement kilns), including ferroalloys 
production, should produce method detection levels very similar to the 
level of 60 [micro]g/dscm that is the result of this review.
    The second step in the process was to calculate three times the RDL 
and compare that value to the calculated MACT floor or beyond the floor 
emissions limit. We use the multiplication factor of three to 
approximate a 99 percent upper confidence interval for a data set of 
seven or more values. If three times the RDL was less than the 
calculated MACT floor emissions limit calculated from the UPL, we would 
conclude that measurement variability was adequately addressed. The 
calculated MACT floor or beyond the floor emissions limit would need no 
adjustment. If, on the other hand, the value equal to three times the 
RDL was greater than the UPL, we would conclude that the calculated 
MACT floor or beyond the floor emissions limit does not account 
entirely for measurement variability. If indicated, we substituted the 
value equal to three times the RDL to apply as the adjusted MACT floor 
or beyond the floor emissions limit. This adjusted value would ensure 
measurement variability is adequately addressed in the MACT floor or 
the beyond the floor emissions limit.
    For HCl, three times the RDL was less than the calculated 99 
percent UPL for exhaust HCl concentration from existing furnaces. Thus, 
for existing sources, the MACT floor for HCl is set at the UPL, or 809 
[micro]g/dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2.
    Consistent with CAA section 112(d)(3), the MACT floor for new 
sources cannot be less stringent than the emissions control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The 99 
percent UPL calculated for HCl based on the best performing source is 
less stringent than the MACT floor for HCl at existing furnaces. We 
determined that the use of the best performing source UPL is not 
appropriate in this situation because the high variability and small 
data pool would result in a new source MACT floor limit that is less 
stringent than the limit based on the UPL calculated from the larger 
data pool for existing sources. Given that the 99 percent UPL for new 
sources is higher than the 99 percent UPL for existing sources, we 
determined that the MACT limit for new sources should be equal to the 
MACT limit for existing sources.
    We then considered a beyond-the-floor option to further reduce 
emissions of HCl at existing sources based on application of additional 
add-on control devices, such as lime injection, but their use is not 
indicated given the high costs of installing and operating such 
controls. There is also concern that use of this technology could 
prevent the current practice of reusing or selling baghouse dust and 
the resulting waste reduction benefits. See the Draft MACT Floor 
Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category in the docket 
for more discussion of this topic.
    Therefore, pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3), we are 
proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include emission limits for new 
and existing sources for HCl of 809 [micro]g/dscm. At this level, we do 
not anticipate that either source would be required to install controls 
to meet the limits. For more information on how these limits were 
derived, see the Draft MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys 
Production Source Category. As described above, there are some 
measurements (i.e., 50 percent) reported as below the method detection 
level. Because of the potential uncertainty in basing a limit partially 
on non-detect values, we considered the possibility of proposing work 
practice standards such as a limit on the amount of coal (the primary 
source of chlorine in the raw materials) in lieu of numerical emission 
limits. We request comment on whether this or other work practices 
might be appropriate.
4. Formaldehyde
    Formaldehyde emissions are also products of incomplete combustion 
from the smelting operation. Based on test data from the ICR, we 
estimate that the two facilities in this source category emit 
approximately 2 tpy of formaldehyde. Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and 112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include 
emission limits for formaldehyde.
    The measured average formaldehyde emissions ranged from 57 to 78 
[micro]g/dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2. Because the 
formaldehyde emissions data included some data points (50 percent) 
reported as below the detection limit, we employed a version of the 
methodology used for HCl to determine the MACT floor. However, in this 
case we lack the underlying large data set of formaldehyde method 
detection limits that we had for HCl method detection limits. In this 
case, the first step was to define a method detection level that is 
representative of the data used in defining the best performers for the 
inclusive source category (i.e., combined data for all subcategories). 
We identified all of the available reported pollutant specific method 
detection levels and calculated the arithmetic mean value. We deemed 
the resulting mean of the method detection levels as the (RDL). Three 
times the RDL was

[[Page 72528]]

greater than the calculated 99 percent UPL for exhaust formaldehyde 
concentrations from existing furnaces, resulting in a MACT floor of 
three times the RDL, or 201 [micro]g/dscm at 2 percent CO2. 
Based on available data, all of the existing sources could meet this 
limit without installing additional controls.
    Due to the high variability in the data pool, the 99 percent UPL 
for the best-performing source is less stringent than the existing 
source MACT floor. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
112(d)(3), we are proposing to revise the 1999 NESHAP to include an 
emission limit for formaldehyde for new and existing sources of 201 
[micro]g/dscm based on the MACT floor calculation. We have not 
identified any appropriate beyond-the-floor control technology options 
specifically for formaldehyde. We recognize the potential for some co-
control of formaldehyde emissions that would be achieved by using 
activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions, but we were 
unable to quantify those reductions. More information regarding how the 
MACT limits were calculated and the costs is provided in Ferroalloys 
Production MACT Floor and Cost Memos, which are available in the docket 
for this rulemaking. Finally, because of the potential uncertainty in 
basing a limit partially on non-detect values, we considered the 
possibility of proposing work practice standards. We request comment on 
whether there are any work practices that might be appropriate.

B. What are the results of the risk assessment and analyses?

    As described above, for the Ferroalloys Production source category, 
we conducted an inhalation risk assessment for all HAP emitted. We also 
conducted multipathway screening analyses for mercury and POM. Details 
of the risk assessment and additional analyses can be found in the 
residual risk documentation referenced in section III.B of this 
preamble, which is available in the docket for this action. The Agency 
considered the available health information--the MIR; the numbers of 
persons in various risk ranges; cancer incidence; the maximum non-
cancer HI; the maximum worst-case acute non-cancer HQ; the extent of 
non-cancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; and 
distribution of risks in the exposed population (54 FR 38044, September 
14, 1989) in developing the proposed CAA section 112(f)(2) standards 
for the Ferroalloys Production source category.
1. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
    Table 5 of this preamble provides an overall summary of the results 
of the inhalation risk assessment.

                                           Table 5--Ferroalloys Production Inhalation Risk Assessment Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Maximum individual cancer risk  (in 1                                                   Maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI \3\
               million) \1\                 Estimated population    Estimated annual   --------------------------------------------   Maximum screening
------------------------------------------- at increased risk of    cancer incidence                                                acute non- cancer HQ
   Based on actual     Based on allowable     cancer  >= 1-in-1     (cases per year)       Based on actual     Based on allowable            \4\
 emissions level \2\     emissions level           million                                 emissions level       emissions level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               80                   100                26,000                 0.002                    90                   200                    10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\2\ Based on the consistent views of major scientific bodies (i.e., NTP in their 12th Report on Carcinogens, IARC, and other international agencies)
  that consider all nickel compounds to be carcinogenic, we currently consider all nickel compounds to have the potential of being as carcinogenic as
  nickel subsulfide. To implement this approach we apply the nickel subsulfide IRIS URE without a factor to reflect the assumption that 100 percent of
  the total mass of nickel may be carcinogenic. The EPA also considers it reasonable to use a value that is 50 percent of the IRIS URE for nickel
  subsulfide for providing an estimate of the lower end of a plausible range of cancer potency values for different mixtures of nickel compounds. If the
  lower end of the nickel URE range is used, the maximum individual lifetime cancer risk based on actual emissions would be 50 in 1 million. The
  allowable cancer risk would remain 100 in a million because at one facility nickel is not the primary cancer driver. The estimated annual cancer
  incidence would also be reduced, but due to our presentation of incidence to one significant figure, remains 0.002. Estimated population values are
  not scalable with the nickel URE range, but would be lower using the lower value.
\3\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Ferroalloys Production source category is the central nervous system.
\4\ The maximum off-site HQ acute value of 10 is driven by emissions of nickel. See section III.B of this preamble for explanation of acute dose-
  response values.

    The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk 
assessment indicate that, based on estimates of current actual 
emissions, the current maximum individual lifetime cancer risk posed by 
these two facilities could be up to 80 in one million (50 in one 
million with the lower nickel URE value), with process fugitive 
emissions (from the furnace, crushing operation, and casting) of 
nickel, chromium and arsenic as major contributors to the risk. The 
total estimated cancer incidence from this source category based on 
actual emission levels is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year or one 
case in every 500 years, with emissions of nickel, chromium and arsenic 
contributing 36 percent, 24 percent and 24 percent respectively, to 
this cancer incidence. In addition, we note that approximately 1,100 
people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 10 in one 
million, and approximately 26,000 people are estimated to have risks 
greater than one in one million as a result of emissions from these two 
facilities. When considering the risks associated with MACT-allowable 
emissions, both facilities have allowable risks of 100 in one million, 
driven by nickel, chromium VI, and arsenic at one facility (which would 
have an allowable cancer risk of 70 in one million when using the lower 
nickel URE value) and chromium VI and arsenic at the other facility 
(which would have an allowable cancer risk of 100 in one million when 
using the lower nickel URE value).
    The maximum modeled chronic non-cancer TOSHI value for the source 
category based on actual emissions could be up to 90 with emissions of 
manganese from process fugitives contributing greater than 90 percent 
of those impacts. A TOSHI of 90 means that the modeled long-term 
average air concentration of manganese at that location is about 4.5 
[micro]g/m\3\, or 90 times above the RfC (i.e., 0.05 [micro]g/m\3\). 
Approximately 28,000 people are exposed to TOSHI levels above 1 and 
approximately 30 people are exposed to a TOSHI greater than 10. When 
considering MACT-allowable emissions, which did not adjust the fugitive 
emissions, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI value could be up to 
200.
    Our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts indicates the 
potential for two pollutants, nickel and arsenic, to exceed an HQ value 
of 1, with a potential maximum HQ up to 10 for nickel and 9 for arsenic 
based on acute REL values for each substance. There

[[Page 72529]]

are no AEGL, ERPG, or short-term occupational values for these 
pollutants to use as comparison to acute REL values, as has been done 
in other RTR actions. In addition, there are no reference values 
available to assess any potential risks from acute exposure to 
manganese. These acute result values were based on hourly emissions 
estimates and a review of the facility boundaries to make sure the 
estimated impacts were off facility property. Refer to Appendix 1 of 
the Risk Assessment document in the docket for a detailed description 
of how the hourly emissions were developed for this source category. 
These results suggest there may be potential for acute impacts of 
concern from the emissions of nickel and arsenic from the two 
facilities in this category. In characterizing the potential for acute 
noncancer impacts of concern, it is important to remember the upward 
bias of these exposure estimates (e.g., worst-case meteorology 
coinciding with a person located at the point of maximum concentration 
during the hour) and to consider the results along with the 
uncertainties related to the emissions estimates and the screening 
methodology.
2. Multipathway Risk Screening and Results
    The PB-HAP emitted by facilities in this category include mercury, 
POM (as benzo(a)pyrene toxicity equivalents, or TEQ), and lead. To 
identify potential multipathway health risks from PB-HAP other than 
lead, we first performed a screening analysis that compared emissions 
of other PB-HAP emitted from the Ferroalloys Production source category 
to emission threshold values. The two facilities in the source category 
reported emissions of mercury and POM, and both of them had baseline 
emission rates greater than the screening emission threshold values for 
the pollutants indicating that there may be potential multipathway 
impacts of concern due to emissions of these pollutants from these two 
facilities.
    Since the two PB-HAP did not screen out during our initial 
screening analysis, we refined our analysis somewhat with some 
additional site-specific information to develop an ``intermediate 
screen,'' which is a more realistic analysis but still considered a 
screening analysis. (See Appendix 5 of the Risk Assessment document in 
the docket for more information about this intermediate screen.) The 
additional site-specific information included land use around the 
facilities, the location of fishable lakes, and local wind direction 
and speed. The result of this analysis was the development of site-
specific emission screening thresholds for POM and mercury. Based on 
this intermediate screening analysis, neither facility screened out, 
meaning that we cannot rule out the potential for multipathway impacts 
of concern due to emissions of these pollutants from these two 
facilities. We were unable to obtain the data necessary to conduct a 
fully refined assessment of multipathway risks from these two 
facilities.
    In evaluating the potential for multipathway effects from emissions 
of lead, modeled maximum annual lead concentrations were compared to 
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for lead (0.15 
[micro]g/m\3\). Results of this analysis estimate that the NAAQS for 
lead could be exceeded at one of the two facilities, largely due to 
process fugitive emissions. This analysis estimates that the annual 
lead concentrations could be as high as two times the NAAQS for lead, 
and if the maximum 3-month rolling average concentrations were used, 
the result could be even greater concentrations above the NAAQS. 
However, this additional analysis was not conducted because, as shown 
below (in section IV.C.2), the maximum annual lead concentration after 
the proposed controls are applied is significantly below the NAAQS, 
with a value of 0.02 [micro]g/m\3\.
3. Facilitywide Risk Assessment Results
    For both facilities in this source category, there are no other 
significant HAP emissions sources present beyond those included in the 
source category. All significant HAP sources have been included in the 
source category risk analysis. Therefore, we conclude that the 
facilitywide risk is essentially the same as the source category risk 
and that no separate facilitywide analysis is necessary.

C. What are our proposed decisions based on risk acceptability and 
ample margin of safety?

1. Risk Acceptability
    As noted in section III.C of this preamble, we weigh all health 
risk factors in our risk acceptability determination, including the 
MIR; the number of persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges; 
cancer incidence; the maximum noncancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer 
HQ; the extent of noncancer risks; the potential for adverse 
environmental effects; distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in 
the exposed population; and risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 38044, 
September 14, 1989).
    Based on the baseline inhalation risk assessment, we estimate that 
the cancer risks to the individual most exposed could be up to 80 in 
one million (50 in one million when using the lower nickel URE value) 
due to actual emissions of arsenic, chromium and nickel from process 
fugitives and up to 100 in one million due to MACT-allowable emissions, 
mainly due to chromium, arsenic and nickel stack emissions. (There is 
no change in the allowable cancer risk estimate when using the lower 
nickel URE value.) We estimate that the incidence of cancer based on 
actual emissions is 0.002 excess cancer cases per year, or 1 case every 
500 years, and that about 26,000 people face a cancer risk greater than 
one in one million due to HAP emissions from this source category. The 
chronic noncancer TOSHI could be up to 90 due to actual emissions of 
manganese from process fugitives and up to 200 due to MACT-allowable 
emissions of manganese from process fugitives. We estimate that about 
28,000 people face a TOSHI level greater than 1 and approximately 30 
people face a TOSHI greater than 10 due to emissions from this source 
category.
    With respect to potential acute non-cancer health risks, we 
estimate that, based on our refined analysis, the worst-case HQ value 
could exceed an HQ value of 1 for two pollutants, nickel and arsenic, 
with a potential maximum HQ up to 10 for nickel and 9 for arsenic. This 
indicates a potential acute concern relative to the baseline emissions 
of these two pollutants based on the REL. In characterizing the 
potential for acute noncancer impacts of concern, it is important to 
remember the upward bias of these exposure estimates and to consider 
the results along with the uncertainties related to the emissions 
estimates and screening methodology. In the case of ferroalloys, the 
acute emissions estimates were based on actual data from the ICR (i.e., 
there was not an acute emissions adjustment factor). Our assessment 
also indicates the potential for multipathway impacts of concern based 
on the intermediate screening assessment due to baseline emissions of 
mercury and POM. Data were unavailable to conduct a fully refined 
assessment of multipathway risks from these two facilities.
    The risk assessment for this source category was based on facility-
specific stack-test data and emissions estimates, giving us a generally 
high degree of confidence in the results. We applied the two-step 
analysis set out in the Benzene NESHAP to assess emissions from this 
source category. Considering all of the above information, we are 
proposing that the risks are

[[Page 72530]]

unacceptable, both for the actual emissions scenario and for the MACT-
allowable emissions scenario.
    The proposed determination that risks are unacceptable for this 
source category is primarily based on the fact that the maximum chronic 
noncancer HI values (90 based on actual emissions, 200 based on 
allowable, both dominated by manganese emissions) are higher than 1 (an 
HI exposure level of 1 is generally considered to be without 
appreciable risk of adverse health effects). The fact that 28,000 
people are estimated to have exposures greater than an HI of 1 (based 
on actual emissions) also weighs in this proposed determination. The 
fact that maximum individual cancer risks are above 1 in a million also 
contributes to our determination of unacceptability, but to a lesser 
extent. While the estimated maximum individual cancer risks would, by 
themselves, not generally lead us to a determination that risks are 
unacceptable, the fact that they occur along with the chronic noncancer 
TOSHI greater than 1 (approximately 28,000 people are exposed to TOSHI 
levels above 1 and approximately 30 people are exposed to a TOSHI 
greater than 10) adds to our concern about these exposures, and further 
supports our proposed determination that risks are unacceptable. The 
total estimated cancer incidence (0.002 cases per year) is not very 
high, and this fact did not weigh significantly in our proposed 
determination of unacceptable risk. However, in the past EPA has 
weighed an estimated cancer incidence of 0.002 cases per year heavily 
in a determination of acceptable risk. EPA notes that there were no 
non-cancer concerns in these previous instances. We further note that, 
while our screening for potential acute and multi-pathway impacts of 
concern from the 2 sources in the category did identify some potential 
concerns for a few HAPs, these screening results did not weigh heavily 
in our proposed determination that risks are unacceptable.
    Given that chronic noncancer risks associated with manganese 
emissions are the primary determinant of unacceptable risks, we provide 
here a brief discussion of the EPA's RfC associated with the inhalation 
of manganese and our confidence in the principal studies supporting the 
development of that RfC for context. The RfC is the level below which 
there is not likely to be appreciable risk of deleterious effects; 
however, the EPA cannot state at what exposure level there will be an 
appreciable risk of deleterious effects. In the case of manganese, the 
effect of concern was a decrease in visual reaction time in adults who 
were occupationally exposed to manganese. The effects were seen at a 
dose adjusted value of 0.05 mg/m\3\ and then to derive the RfC, the EPA 
divided this value by 1000 to account for uncertainties related to 
sensitive individuals (10x), use of the lowest exposure level at which 
effects were observed in lieu of a level without effects (10x) and due 
to database limitations (10x). We note that the concentration reflected 
in the maximum TOSHI of 90 (0.0045 mg/m\3\) is approximately a factor 
of 10 lower than the 0.05 mg/m\3\ dose adjusted effect level in an 
adult male work force and used in the derivation of the RfC (0.00005 
mg/m\3\). The EPA has ``medium confidence'' (as used and described in 
the IRIS database) in the RfC value of 0.00005 mg/m\3\. The confidence 
level reflects the overall level of uncertainty in the principle 
studies, which were based on human occupational studies, and the 
database.
    Overall confidence in the principal studies (Roels et al., 1987, 
1992) is ``medium''. Neither of the principal studies identified a no 
observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for neurobehavioral effects, nor 
did either study directly measure particle size or provide information 
on the particle size distribution. The 1992 study by Roels et al. did 
provide respirable and total dust measurements, but the 1987 study 
measured only total dust.\35\ These limitations of the studies are 
mitigated by the fact that the principal studies found similar 
indications of neurobehavioral dysfunction, which was consistent with 
the results of other human studies. In addition, the 1992 Roels et al. 
study provides sufficient information to establish individual 
integrated exposures; the 1987 Roels et al. study did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ ``Total and respirable dust concentrations were highly 
correlated, with the Mn content of the respirable fraction 
representing on average 25% of the manganese content in the total 
dust. The RfC is based on the respirable fraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Confidence in the database on manganese health effects is 
``medium''. The duration of exposure was relatively limited and the 
workers were relatively young in all of the principal and supporting 
studies. These temporal limitations raise concerns that longer 
durations of exposure and/or interactions with aging might result in 
the detection of effects at lower concentrations, as suggested by 
results from other studies. In addition, the studies, with the 
exception of the 1992 Roels et al. study in which manganese exposure 
was limited to manganese oxide, did not specify the species of 
manganese to which workers were exposed. It is not clear whether 
certain compounds or oxidation states of manganese are more toxic than 
others. Although the primary neurotoxicological effects of exposure to 
airborne manganese have been qualitatively well characterized by the 
general consistency of effects across studies, the exposure-effect 
relationship remains to be well quantified, and a no-effect level for 
neurotoxicity has not been identified in any of these studies thus far. 
Finally, the effects of manganese on development and reproduction have 
not been studied adequately. See the full IRIS summary for manganese 
for more information (IRIS, Manganese, available at: www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0373.htm).
    As noted in the 1989 Benzene NESHAP, the Agency weighs multiple 
risk factors in making a determination of acceptable or unacceptable 
risk, and notes that acceptability cannot be reduced to any single 
factor. In applying the balancing factors to this action, EPA 
considered a wide range of data including the MIR; the number of 
persons in various cancer and noncancer risk ranges; cancer incidence; 
the maximum noncancer HI; the maximum acute noncancer HQ; the extent of 
noncancer risks; the potential for adverse environmental effects; 
distribution of cancer and noncancer risks in the exposed population; 
and risk estimation uncertainty (54 FR 38044, September 14, 1989).
    In summary, the MIR was 80 in a million based on actual emissions 
and 100 in one million based on allowable emissions; the total 
estimated cancer incidence was 0.002 cases per year (or 1 case in every 
500 years); and approximately 30 people could be exposed at a TOSHI 
greater than 10 while approximately 28,000 could be exposed at a TOSHI 
greater than 1. Since the RfC is 1000 fold below the lowest level at 
which neurological effects were seen, the maximum TOSHI of 90 (or 200 
for allowable risks) is still below the effect level used to derive the 
RfC and there is uncertainty as to exactly what level of exposure above 
the RfC will lead to appreciable risk of adverse effects. The 
population from which the effect level was derived was an adult male 
worker population, and that this population does not necessarily 
represent the general population. We note that the concentration 
reflected in the maximum TOSHI of 90 (0.0045 mg/m\3\) is approximately 
a factor of 10 lower than the 0.05 mg/m\3\ dose adjusted effect level 
in an adult male work force which was used in the derivation of the 
RfC.

[[Page 72531]]

    Based on our assessment of the information, we are proposing that 
the risks are unacceptable. We solicit comment on all aspects of this 
proposed determination. Specifically, we solicit any information (and 
supporting data) that would further inform our proposed decision.
    We also solicit comment on whether an alternative balancing of all 
the same factors including the weights afforded to individual factors 
discussed above and their associated uncertainties could lead to a 
different decision regarding risks. EPA also solicits any information 
(and supporting data) that would further inform this alternative 
approach.
    Under the two-step Benzene NESHAP approach, we are required under 
CAA section 112(f)(2)(A) to make a determination as to what controls 
are needed to achieve an ample margin of safety for the source category 
after we make a determination on risk acceptability. The discussion of 
the controls needed to achieve an ample margin of safety in section 
IV.C.3 addresses both what would be needed if we find risks are 
unacceptable as well as what would be needed if we find that risks are 
acceptable.
2. Proposed Controls To Address Risks
    We conducted an assessment to estimate the risks from the two 
facilities in the source category based on a post-control scenario 
reflecting the proposed requirements described above to address 
unregulated HAP (section IV.A) and the proposed controls described 
below. Details are provided in the Draft Risk Assessment report which 
is available in the docket for this action.
a. Allowable Stack Emissions
    In order to ensure that the risks associated with this source 
category are acceptable, we evaluated the potential to reduce MACT-
allowable stack emissions, which had driven the cancer MIR based on 
allowable emissions to 100 in a million, primarily due to allowable 
stack emissions of arsenic, nickel and chromium, and contributed 
significantly to the chronic noncancer TOSHI (based on allowable 
emissions) of 200, primarily due to allowable stack emissions of 
manganese. Our analysis determined that we could lower the existing 
particulate matter emission limits by approximately 50 percent for 
furnace stack emissions, by 80 percent for crushing and screening stack 
emissions and by 98 percent for the metal oxygen refining process. 
After the implementation of these tighter PM stack limits, the 
estimated cancer MIR for the source category based on allowable 
emissions would become 80 in one million and the TOSHI would be about 
90.
    For the reasons described above, under the authority of CAA section 
112(f)(2), we propose to set particulate matter emission limits for the 
stacks at the following levels: 9.3 mg/dscm corrected to 2 percent 
CO2 for new or reconstructed electric arc furnaces, 24 mg/
dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2 for existing electric arc 
furnaces, 1.5 mg/dscm corrected to 2 percent CO2 for any 
new, reconstructed or existing MOR process, and 13 mg/dscm for any new, 
reconstructed or existing crushing and screening equipment. We believe 
sources can achieve these limits with existing controls. These new 
emissions limits will reduce potential risks due to allowable emissions 
from the stacks and prevent backsliding. We propose that compliance for 
existing sources will be demonstrated by annual stack testing and 
installation and operation of bag leak detection systems for both new 
and existing sources.
b. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources
    Process fugitive sources are partially controlled by the existing 
MACT via a shop building opacity standard; however, that standard was 
only intended to address tapping process fugitives generated under 
``normal'' tapping process operating conditions. Casting and crushing 
and screening process fugitives in the furnace building were not 
included. Under the authority of section 112(d)(2) of the Act, which 
allows the use of measures to enclose systems or processes to eliminate 
emissions and measures to collect, capture or treat such pollutants 
when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions 
point, we evaluated several options to achieve improved emissions 
capture. We developed several control scenarios to assess options to 
improve/add local ventilation and associated control (e.g., improve 
tapping capture, install capture and control on casting operations), 
but we concluded that these were all ineffective in significantly 
reducing emissions and risks. As part of the technology review process, 
we identified a furnace building ventilation system at a non-manganese 
producer of ferroalloys. We evaluated an option based on this furnace 
building ventilation system, which involves enclosing the furnace 
building(s) and evacuating the emissions to a control device(s). Based 
on our assessment we conclude that this option would reduce process 
fugitive emissions by about 98 percent and reduce the maximum noncancer 
TOSHI to about 2. A TOSHI of 2 means that the modeled long-term 
concentration of manganese at that location would be about 0.1 
[micro]g/m\3\ (i.e., about 2 times higher than the RfC). These controls 
would also significantly reduce the emissions of arsenic, chromium and 
nickel and therefore significantly reduce the cancer risks. These 
reductions would result in acceptable risk levels. Therefore, under the 
authority of CAA section 112(f), we are proposing such an approach, 
whereby the furnace buildings must be enclosed and process fugitive 
emissions would need to be collected under negative pressure at the 
ridge vents of the shop building and ducted to a control device.
    We are proposing that the PM emissions limit (as a surrogate for 
particulate metal HAP) at the control device would be the same as it is 
for the furnace stacks (24 mg/dscm). This would allow sources the 
option to duct some or all process fugitive emissions to an existing 
furnace control device if it has excess capacity. If the existing 
control device at the facility does not have sufficient excess capacity 
to handle the captured emissions, the facility would have to install 
additional controls capable of complying with the proposed emission 
limit.
    The source would also have to monitor building opacity, prepare and 
operate according to a process fugitives ventilation plan and conduct 
annual performance testing of the building ventilation control device 
to demonstrate compliance with the proposed standards. Baghouses would 
be required to be equipped with BLDS. We also propose that facilities 
would need to continue the practices to minimize outdoor fugitive dust 
emissions that are required by the 1999 MACT rule which includes 
implementing measures specified in their outdoor fugitive dust control 
plans as approved by the Administrator.
    However, recognizing that there may be other control measures that 
could achieve equivalent emissions reductions that we have not yet 
identified, and to provide some flexibility for facilities to determine 
the best approach to reduce their emissions, we are also proposing an 
equivalent alternative compliance approach. Under this alternative 
approach, we propose that facilities would still need to continue the 
work practices to minimize outdoor fugitive dust emissions that are 
required by the 1999 MACT rule which includes implementing measures 
specified in their outdoor fugitive dust control plans as approved by 
the Administrator. However, in lieu of building the full enclosure and 
capture and evacuation system described above to control

[[Page 72532]]

process fugitive emissions, we are proposing that facilities can design 
and implement an equivalent alternative approach (e.g., local capture, 
controls, and work practices) to address the risks associated with 
those process fugitive emissions. Compliance would be demonstrated by 
ensuring facilities apply the equivalent alternative approach to 
control process fugitive emissions, continue the work practices to 
minimize outdoor fugitive dust emissions, and also conduct fenceline 
monitoring to demonstrate that the ambient concentration of manganese 
at their facility boundary is no more than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 60-day 
rolling average, as described below.
    Specifically, we propose to require that sources seeking to use 
this alternative prepare and submit for the Administrator's approval a 
written plan describing and explaining the equivalent alternative 
approach that they propose to apply and a proposed compliance 
monitoring network that must consist of at least two monitors located 
at or near the facility boundary, and in locations expected to have the 
highest concentrations of manganese, and the procedures for sampling, 
sample handling and custody, sample analysis, quality assurance, and 
recordkeeping procedures. The purpose of the ambient air monitoring 
network would be to ensure that manganese concentrations in air near 
the facility boundaries remain at or below 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ based on 10-
sample rolling averages, with samples being collected every 6 days 
(i.e., 60-day rolling averages). The monitoring plan must include a 
minimum of two monitoring sites that are placed in locations that are 
most likely to capture measurements of the maximum concentrations at or 
near the facility boundaries. For example, at least one monitor must be 
placed in the predominant downwind direction from main emissions 
sources based on historical weather patterns in the area. This standard 
for manganese emissions would be a surrogate for all particulate HAP 
metals (including arsenic, nickel and chromium) since they are emitted 
by the same processes and controlled with the same devices and 
measures. We propose to set this alternative limit using manganese as a 
surrogate for metal HAP because manganese is the primary HAP metal 
emitted from this source category. We considered the feasibility of 
using PM as a surrogate, but developing a reliable relationship between 
fenceline manganese concentration and filterable PM concentration is 
almost impossible. We request comment on the use of manganese as a 
surrogate for HAP metals in the alternative approach.
    This alternative regulatory requirement would provide flexibility 
to facilities in determining the within-facility emission sources that 
should be captured and vented to a control device that are most 
effective for reducing process fugitive emissions at their facilities. 
However, any facility considering this alternative approach would need 
to demonstrate that they can be expected to achieve the fenceline 
limitation with the proposed alternative approach and obtain approval 
from the Administrator. This is especially important for facilities 
with a history of elevated ambient manganese concentrations based on 
monitoring by state regulatory agencies or the EPA, or any facility 
that has been confirmed as the main contributor to elevated monitored 
manganese concentrations in a particular area. Nevertheless, we are 
seeking comments on this proposed alternative requirement, including 
the controls and practices that can achieve the equivalent level of 
reductions, the averaging time for monitoring, and whether two monitors 
would be sufficient or if more monitors may be warranted.
    We propose to set the fenceline concentration level at 0.1 [mu]g/
m\3\ to reflect the equivalent level of emissions control that we 
estimate will be achieved with the requirement to enclose the furnace 
building(s) and evacuate the emissions to a control device(s). As 
described in section IV.D.2, the maximum modeled chronic noncancer 
inhalation TOSHI value is 2 after full enclosure and evacuation of 
emissions based on the post-control modeling analysis. This means that 
the modeled concentration at the maximum impact location after these 
controls are in place would be 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\, which is 2 times higher 
than the value of the RfC for manganese. Therefore, achieving and 
maintaining an air manganese level of 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ at the facility 
boundary is proposed as the equivalent alternative standard to minimize 
emissions of HAP metals. Nevertheless, we request comment on other 
concentration values that might be appropriate to serve as the 
concentration level for fenceline monitoring under this alternative. We 
also request comment on whether a different averaging period should be 
required.
    As part of this alternative, we are also proposing a provision that 
would allow for reduced monitoring if the facility demonstrates ambient 
manganese concentrations less than 50 percent of the ambient manganese 
concentration limit for 3 consecutive years at each monitor. We propose 
that a revised monitoring plan may be submitted (for review and 
possible approval by the Administrator) to reduce the sampling and 
analysis frequency if all of the 10-sample rolling average 
concentrations at each monitor are less than 50 percent of the limit of 
0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ over a 3-year period.
    All of these proposed controls are described further under the 
technology review (in section IV.D.2.) of this preamble.
c. Results of the Post-Control Risk Assessment
    The results of the post-control chronic inhalation cancer risk 
assessment indicate that, based on actual emissions, the maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk posed by these two facilities, after 
the implementation of the proposed controls, could be up to 5 in one 
million, reduced from 80 in one million (i.e., pre-controls), with an 
estimated reduction in cancer incidence to 0.0004 excess cancer cases 
per year, reduced from 0.002 excess cancer cases per year. In addition, 
the number of people estimated to have a cancer risk greater than or 
equal to one in one million would be reduced from 26,000 to 1,300.
    The results of the post-control assessment also indicate that, 
based on actual emissions, the maximum chronic noncancer inhalation 
TOSHI value would be reduced to 2, from the baseline estimate of 90. 
The number of people estimated to have a TOSHI greater than 1 would be 
reduced from 28,000 to less than 10.
    We also estimate that after the implementation of controls, the 
maximum worst-case acute refined HQ value would be reduced from a 
potential high of 10 to 0.3 (based on the REL value for nickel 
compounds) eliminating any potential for acute impacts of concern.
    Considering post-control emissions of multipathway HAP, mercury 
emissions would be reduced approximately 88 percent, while POM 
emissions would be reduced approximately 66 percent from the baseline 
emission rates. Based on our intermediate screening approach for 
multipathway risks, emissions of mercury ``screen out,'' or are reduced 
below the screening threshold for both facilities, indicating no 
potential for multipathway impacts of concern due to mercury. However, 
emissions of POM (as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ) remain above the intermediate 
screening thresholds for both facilities (one by a factor of 20 and one 
by a factor of 2), indicating that we cannot rule out the potential for 
multipathway impacts of concern due to emissions of POM from these 
facilities.

[[Page 72533]]

As mentioned above, the highest lead concentration after controls, 0.02 
[mu]g/m\3\, is well below the NAAQS, indicating a low potential for 
multipathway impacts of concern due to lead.
3. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis and Proposed Controls
    Under the ample margin of safety analysis, we evaluate the cost and 
feasibility of available control technologies and other measures 
(including the controls, measures and costs reviewed under the 
technology review) that could be applied in this source category to 
further reduce the risks due to emissions of HAP identified in our risk 
assessment.
    We estimate that the actions proposed under CAA section 112(f)(2), 
as described above to address unacceptable risks, will reduce the MIR 
associated with arsenic, nickel and chromium from 80 in one million (50 
in one million using the lower end of the nickel URE range) to 5 in one 
million for actual emissions. The cancer incidence will be reduced from 
0.002 to 0.0004, and the number of people estimated to have cancer 
risks greater than one in one million will be reduced, from 26,000 
people to 1,300 people. The chronic noncancer inhalation TOSHI will be 
reduced from 90 to 2, and the number of people exposed to a TOSHI level 
greater than 1 will be reduced from 28,000 people to less than 10 
people. In addition, the maximum acute HQ value will be reduced from 
potentially up to 10 to less than 1, and the potential multipathway 
impacts will be reduced.
    Based on all of the above information, we conclude that the risks 
after implementation of the proposed controls are acceptable. Based on 
our research and analysis, we did not identify any cost-effective 
controls beyond those proposed above that would achieve further 
reduction in risk. Therefore we conclude that the controls to achieve 
acceptable risks (described above) will also achieve an ample margin of 
safety. Although we conclude that the implementation of the proposed 
requirements described above will provide public health protection with 
an ample margin of safety we acknowledge that there may be other 
control technologies that may also achieve these goals.
    We are soliciting comments and information regarding additional 
dust and process fugitive control measures and work practices that may 
be more feasible to implement and effective in further reducing process 
and dust fugitive emissions of metal HAP, or additional monitoring that 
may be warranted to ensure adequate control of fugitive emissions. We 
also request comments on the cost effectiveness of achieving the 
proposed process fugitive control measures and any additional options 
that may be more cost effective.
    We also note that we are soliciting comment on our proposed risk 
finding. If we conclude, after evaluating data and information received 
in comments on this proposed rule, that the risks posed by this source 
category are acceptable, then based on the data and information we 
currently have, we would likely adopt the same controls described in 
section IV.C.2 as being necessary to provide an ample margin of safety. 
As noted above in this section and in section IV.C.2.c., the proposed 
controls provide significant risk reductions beyond the current rule. 
Furthermore, as discussed more extensively in section IV.D.2 of this 
notice, below, we conclude that these controls are cost effective and 
technically feasible. We solicit comment on the appropriateness of 
these controls in the event we find, based on data and information 
received in comment, that the current rule provides an acceptable risk.

D. What are the results and proposed decisions based on our technology 
review?

    Based on our technology review, we determined that there have been 
advances in emissions control measures since the Ferroalloys Production 
NESHAP was originally promulgated in 1999. Since promulgation, 
facilities have steadily improved the performance of their control 
devices through upgrades or replacements. They have also developed 
improved capture techniques for some process fugitives (e.g., casting 
and tapping emissions). Additional details regarding these analyses can 
be found in the following technical document for this action which is 
available in the docket: Draft Technology Review for the Ferroalloys 
Production Source Category.
1. Metal HAP Emissions From Stacks
    We propose to continue to use particulate matter as a surrogate for 
metal HAP other than mercury. For a discussion regarding the 
appropriateness of particulate matter as a surrogate for non-mercury 
metal HAP, please see the memo ``Surrogate for Metal HAP Emissions for 
the Ferroalloys Source Category'' in the docket for this proposed rule. 
Based on the results from the ICR test program, we determined that all 
of the sources of stack emissions are emitting at significantly lower 
levels than their maximum permitted levels. For this reason, under the 
authority of CAA section 112(d)(6), we are proposing revised emission 
limits for new and existing sources. We are also proposing that any 
uncontrolled furnace vent stacks would be subject to the same 
concentration limits.
    We calculated the proposed emission limits based on a UPL analysis, 
resulting in a proposed existing source furnace stack emissions limit 
of 24 mg/dscm and proposed new source furnace stack emissions limit of 
9.3 mg/dscm. We also calculated a proposed stack emission limit of 13 
mg/dscm for crushing and screening equipment that would apply to both 
new and existing sources.
    The metal oxygen refining operation is a unique process, and so we 
only have a single ICR test data point. Therefore, we calculated a 
proposed emissions limit for this source using the 99 percent UPL from 
the test data, resulting in a proposed limit of 3.9 mg/dscm that would 
apply to new and existing metal oxygen refining operation sources. We 
request comment on whether we should instead set the MOR limit to be 
the same as the proposed furnace stack limit for existing sources. This 
change would allow a facility to use any excess capacity in the MOR 
control device to treat furnace emissions, if needed. Such a limit is 
still more stringent than the current limit included in subpart XXX for 
the MOR (approximately 69 mg/dscm).
    Based on our analyses, we expect that no additional controls would 
be required for the facilities to comply with these proposed limits. To 
demonstrate compliance, we propose that sources would be required to 
conduct periodic performance testing, and develop and operate according 
to a baghouse operating plan or continuously monitor scrubber operating 
parameters. Furnace baghouses would be required to be equipped with bag 
leak detection systems (BLDS).
2. Metal HAP Emissions From Process Fugitives
    As described above, we evaluated several options to improve and 
increase the capture and control of process fugitive sources. The two 
main options involve either local ventilation or building ventilation. 
Local ventilation (e.g., hoods or ductwork located in close proximity 
to an emissions source such as tapping or casting) is common in this 
industry, but performance varies due to design of the capture system, 
maintenance practices and control device capacity. Industry 
representatives have expressed concern that extensive retrofitting of 
local ventilation is complicated at existing facilities because of the 
need for

[[Page 72534]]

material movement using large overhead cranes and ladles. We identified 
a furnace building ventilation system at a ferrosilicon producer, using 
a similar production process. This ``system'' is basically an enclosure 
of the furnace building with evacuation of emission to a control 
device.
    We evaluated an option to enclose the furnace building(s) and 
evacuate the emissions to a control device(s) similar to the system 
used at the ferrosilicon producing facility described above. Based on 
that evaluation, we believe that it is feasible to install enclosures 
and have the fugitive emissions at the ridge vents of the shop building 
collected under negative pressure and ducted to a control device, and 
have a PM emissions limit at the control device the same as it is for 
the furnace stacks (i.e., 24 mg/dscm). This would allow sources the 
option to duct some or all process fugitive emissions to an existing 
furnace control device if it has excess capacity. If it does not have 
excess capacity, the facility would have to install additional 
controls. Under this option, the source would also have to monitor 
building opacity; prepare and operate according to a process fugitives 
emissions ventilation plan, which would include requirements to 
demonstrate that the building is being operated at a negative pressure 
of at least 0.007 inches of water; and conduct periodic performance 
testing of the building ventilation control device to demonstrate 
compliance with the proposed standards. Baghouses would be required to 
be equipped with BLDS.
    We estimate the total capital costs of installing the required 
ductwork, fans, and baghouses under this option to be $9.4 million and 
the total annualized costs to be $2.3 million for the two plants. We 
estimate that particulate metal HAP emissions would be reduced by 81 
tons, resulting in a cost per ton of HAP removed at $28,000 per ton 
($14 per pound). We also estimate that this option would achieve PM 
emission reductions of 630 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of PM 
removed at $3,600 per ton and achieve PM2.5 emission 
reductions of 257 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of PM2.5 
removed of $8800 per ton. In light of the technical feasibility and 
cost effectiveness of this approach, we are proposing this option under 
the authority of section 112(d)(6). These proposed requirements are 
exactly the same as those proposed under Section 112(f) which are 
described in section IV.C.2 of this preamble.
    As described above in section IV.C.2.b, we are also proposing an 
equivalent alternative compliance approach. Facilities can design and 
implement an equivalent alternative approach (e.g., local capture, 
controls, and work practices) to achieve equivalent reductions of their 
process fugitive emissions. Compliance would be demonstrated by 
ensuring facilities apply the equivalent alternative approach to 
control process fugitive emissions, continue the work practices to 
minimize outdoor fugitive dust emissions, and also conduct fenceline 
monitoring to demonstrate that the ambient concentration of manganese 
at their facility boundary is no more than 0.1 [mu]g/m\3\ on a 60-day 
rolling average.
3. Hydrochloric Acid, Formaldehyde, Mercury and PAH Emissions From 
Furnace Stacks
    The controls for HCl, formaldehyde, mercury and PAHs were described 
in Section IV.A., and no additional controls have been identified.
4. Outdoor Fugitive Dust Emissions
    The existing rule has a requirement for an outdoor fugitive dust 
control plan. We are unable to quantify HAP emissions from outdoor 
fugitive dust sources and did not identify any additional procedures or 
controls that could be expected to have a significant impact on these 
emissions. Therefore, we are not proposing to change the existing 
requirements.

E. What other actions are we proposing?

1. Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction
    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA section 112 
regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods of SSM. 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (DC Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 130 S. 
Ct. 1735 (U.S. 2010). Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption 
contained in 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), that are part of 
a regulation, commonly referred to as the ``General Provisions Rule,'' 
that the EPA promulgated under CAA section 112. When incorporated into 
CAA section 112(d) regulations for specific source categories, these 
two provisions exempt sources from the requirement to comply with the 
otherwise applicable CAA section 112(d) emissions standard during 
periods of SSM.
    We are proposing the elimination of the SSM exemption in this rule. 
Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA is proposing standards in 
this rule that apply at all times. We are also proposing several 
revisions to Table 1 to subpart XXX of part 63 (the General Provisions 
Applicability table). For example, we are proposing to eliminate the 
incorporation of the General Provisions' requirement that the source 
develop an SSM plan. We also are proposing to eliminate or revise 
certain recordkeeping and reporting that related to the SSM exemption. 
The EPA has attempted to ensure that we have not included in the 
proposed regulatory language any provisions that are inappropriate, 
unnecessary, or redundant in the absence of the SSM exemption. We are 
specifically seeking comment on whether there are any such provisions 
that we have inadvertently incorporated or overlooked.
    In proposing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into 
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained 
below, has not proposed different standards for those periods.
    Information on periods of startup and shutdown received from the 
industry in the ICR indicate that emissions during these periods do not 
increase. Control devices such as baghouses for metal HAP particulate 
control and activated carbon controls for mercury are started up before 
the process units, and are operational during the shutdown phase of a 
process. Therefore, no increase in emissions is expected during these 
periods. Building ventilation systems for process fugitive emissions 
will be in place at all times. Therefore, separate standards for 
periods of startup and shutdown are not being proposed.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all 
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. However, by 
contrast, malfunction is defined as a ``sudden, infrequent, and not 
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control and monitoring 
equipment, process equipment or a process to operate in a normal or 
usual manner * * *'' (40 CFR 63.2). The EPA has determined that CAA 
section 112 does not require that emissions that occur during periods 
of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 112 
standards. Under CAA section 112, emissions standards for new sources 
must be no less stringent than the level ``achieved'' by the best 
controlled similar source, and emission standards for existing sources 
generally must be no less stringent than the average emissions 
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent (or 5 sources 
in cases where there are fewer than 30 sources in the source category) 
of sources in the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that 
directs the Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level 
``achieved'' by the best performing or best controlled sources when 
setting emissions

[[Page 72535]]

standards. Moreover, while the EPA accounts for variability in setting 
emissions standards consistent with the CAA section 112 case law, 
nothing in that case law requires the Agency to consider malfunctions 
as part of that analysis. Section 112 of the CAA uses the concept of 
``best controlled'' and ``best performing'' unit in defining the level 
of stringency that CAA section 112 performance standards must meet. 
Applying the concept of ``best controlled'' or ``best performing'' to a 
unit that is malfunctioning presents significant difficulties, as 
malfunctions are sudden and unexpected events.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not 
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can 
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties 
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree, and 
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the 
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably'' 
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (DC Cir. 
1999) (The EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the extent of 
data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally defer to an 
agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect scientific 
information, rather than to ``invest the resources to conduct the 
perfect study.'') See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 
(DC Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general limit, individual 
permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate all upset 
situations. After a certain point, the transgression of regulatory 
limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,' such as 
strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a variety of 
other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative exercise 
of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification in 
advance by regulation''). In addition, the goal of a best controlled or 
best performing source is to operate in such a way as to avoid 
malfunctions of the source and accounting for malfunctions could lead 
to standards that are significantly less stringent than levels that are 
achieved by a well-performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's 
approach to malfunctions is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a 
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA 
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA 
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, 
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during 
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as 
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions. 
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with 
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not 
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor 
maintenance or careless operation'' 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of 
malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly 
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can 
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emissions standard. (See, 
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983)). The EPA is therefore proposing to add to 
the final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties for 
exceedances of emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. See 40 
CFR 63.1622 (defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context 
of an enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and 
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a 
judicial or administrative proceeding). We also are proposing other 
regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are necessary to 
establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove by a 
preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements set 
forth in 40 CFR 63.1627 (40 CFR 22.24). The criteria ensure that the 
affirmative defense is available only where the event that causes an 
exceedance of the emissions limit meets the narrow definition of 
malfunction in 40 CFR 63.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonable 
preventable and not caused by poor maintenance and or careless 
operation). For example, to successfully assert the affirmative 
defense, the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 
excess emissions ``[w]ere caused by a sudden, infrequent, and 
unavoidable failure of air pollution control and monitoring equipment, 
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner 
* * *.'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken 
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 
CFR 63.1623(g) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the 
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs 
were made as expeditiously as possible when the applicable emissions 
limitations were being exceeded * * *'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps 
were taken to minimize the impact of the excess emissions on ambient 
air quality, the environment and human health * * *.'' In any judicial 
or administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the 
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met 
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with CAA 
section 113 (see also 40 CFR 22.27).
    The EPA included an affirmative defense in the proposed rule in an 
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation, 
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that 
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission limits may be exceeded 
under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA must 
establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or 
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.'' 
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation and emission 
standard''). See generally Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 (DC 
Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 112 
emissions limitations are continuous. The affirmative defense for 
malfunction events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where 
there is a malfunction, the emission limitation is still enforceable 
through injunctive relief. While ``continuous'' limitations, on the one 
hand, are required, there is also caselaw indicating that in many 
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical 
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 
486 F.2d 427, 433 (DC Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in 
setting standards under CAA section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as 
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment 
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the 
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to 
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement 
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (DC Cir. 1973). Though 
intervening caselaw such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 
amendments undermine the relevance of these cases today, they support 
the EPA's view that a system that incorporates some level of 
flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for 
a defense to civil

[[Page 72536]]

penalties for excess emissions that are proven to be beyond the control 
of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has 
formalized its approach to upset events. In a Clean Water Act setting, 
the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized approach when 
regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon 
Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). But see, 
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (DC Cir. 1978) 
(holding that an informal approach is adequate). The affirmative 
defense provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its 
emission limitations are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 
7602(k), and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the 
reasonableness of the standard as a whole.
    Specifically, we are proposing the following changes to the rule.
     Added general duty requirements in 40 CFR 63.1623(g) to 
replace General Provision requirements that reference vacated SSM 
provisions.
     Added replacement language that eliminates the reference 
to SSM exemptions applicable to performance tests in 40 CFR 
63.1625(a)(5).
     Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1629(d) requiring the 
reporting of malfunctions as part of the affirmative defense 
provisions.
     Added paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.1629(b) requiring the 
keeping of certain records during malfunctions as part of the 
affirmative defense provisions.
     Developed Table 1 to subpart XXX of part 63 to reflect 
changes in the applicability of the General Provisions to this subpart 
resulting from a court vacatur of certain SSM requirements in the 
General Provisions.
2. Electronic Reporting
    The EPA and other authorities such as state, local and tribal 
agencies must have performance test data to conduct effective reviews 
of CAA sections 112 and 129 standards, as well as for many other 
purposes including compliance determinations, emission factor 
development, and annual emission rate determinations. We believe that 
improvements in the process of submitting, reviewing and storing test 
data would result in increases in efficiency and cost savings to the 
regulated community; state, local and tribal agencies; the public and 
ourselves. These improvements are possible because stack testing firms 
are increasingly collecting performance test data in electronic format, 
making it possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that 
would increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve 
data accessibility.
    Through this proposal, the EPA is proposing a step to increase the 
ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data accessibility. 
Specifically, the EPA is proposing that owners and operators of 
Ferroalloys Production facilities submit electronic copies of required 
performance test reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. The WebFIRE 
database was constructed to store performance test data for use in 
developing emission factors. A description of the WebFIRE database is 
available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    As proposed above, data entry would be through an electronic 
emissions test report structure called the Electronic Reporting Tool 
(ERT). The ERT would be able to transmit the electronic report through 
the EPA's Central Data Exchange network for storage in the WebFIRE 
database, making submittal of data very straightforward and easy. A 
description of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the 
EPA would apply only to those performance tests conducted using test 
methods that will be supported by the ERT. The ERT contains a specific 
electronic data entry form for most of the commonly used EPA reference 
methods. A listing of the pollutants and test methods supported by the 
ERT is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html. We 
believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach to 
electronic data submittal. Having these data, the EPA would be able to 
develop improved emission factors, make fewer information requests, and 
promulgate better regulations.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test 
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much 
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. Another 
advantage is that the ERT clearly states what testing information would 
be required. Another important proposed benefit of submitting these 
data to the EPA at the time the source test is conducted is that it 
should substantially reduce the effort involved in data collection 
activities in the future. When the EPA has performance test data in 
hand, there will likely be fewer or less substantial data collection 
requests in conjunction with prospective required residual risk 
assessments or technology reviews. This would result in a reduced 
burden on both affected facilities (in terms of reduced manpower to 
respond to data collection requests) and the EPA (in terms of preparing 
and distributing data collection requests and assessing the results).
    State, local, and tribal agencies could also benefit from more 
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them. 
The ERT would allow for an electronic review process rather than a 
manual data assessment making review and evaluation of the source 
provided data and calculations easier and more efficient. Finally, 
another benefit of the proposed data submittal to WebFIRE 
electronically is that these data would greatly improve the overall 
quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing the pool 
of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors and by 
ensuring that the factors are more representative of current industry 
operational procedures. A common complaint heard from industry and 
regulators is that emission factors are outdated or not representative 
of a particular source category. With timely receipt and incorporation 
of data from most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure 
that emission factors, when updated, represent the most current range 
of operational practices. In summary, in addition to supporting 
regulation development, control strategy development, and other air 
pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated 
with performance test data would save industry, state, local, tribal 
agencies, and the EPA significant time, money, and effort while also 
improving the quality of emission inventories and, as a result, air 
quality regulations.
3. Emissions Averaging
    We are proposing to add an emissions averaging option for electric 
arc furnace stack emissions (PM, mercury, PAH, HCl or formaldehyde). If 
you have more than one existing emission source (e.g., electric arc 
furnace) located at one or more contiguous properties, which are under 
common control of the same person (or persons under common control), 
you may demonstrate compliance by emission averaging among the existing 
emission sources, if your averaged emissions for such emission sources 
are equal to or less than the applicable emission limit.
    We are also proposing to allow averaging between existing process 
fugitive control devices for PM stack emissions as a second averaging 
group. However, we believe it may be appropriate to combine these 
process fugitive stack emissions into the furnace stack averaging group 
for PM emissions

[[Page 72537]]

for two reasons. First, both types of emissions are likely to be 
controlled with similar, if not common control devices, e.g., large 
fabric filters. Second, we are proposing to apply an identical PM 
emission limit for both of these emission sources, which would simplify 
averaging of PM emissions. We request comment on this option.
    We are also proposing to allow averaging between existing crushing 
and screening equipment for PM stack emissions. We believe this is a 
distinct averaging group compared to the furnace and process fugitives 
groups. The airflow and associated control devices are typically much 
smaller and they are subject to a more stringent emission limit than 
the other PM sources. However, we request comment on the potential for 
more broadly defined averaging options for this group.
    As part of the EPA's general policy of encouraging the use of 
flexible compliance approaches where they can be properly monitored and 
enforced, we are including emissions averaging for existing sources in 
this proposed rule. Emissions averaging can provide sources the 
flexibility to comply in the least costly manner while still 
maintaining regulation that is workable and enforceable. Emissions 
averaging would allow owners and operators of an existing affected 
source to demonstrate that the source complies with the proposed 
emission limits by averaging the emissions from an individual affected 
emission unit that is emitting above the proposed emission limits with 
other affected emission units at the same facility that are emitting 
below the proposed emission limits and that are within the same 
averaging group, as described below.
    This proposed rule includes an emissions averaging compliance 
alternative because emissions averaging represents an equivalent, more 
flexible, and less costly alternative to controlling certain emission 
points to MACT levels. We have concluded that a limited form of 
averaging could be implemented that would not lessen the stringency of 
the MACT limits and would provide flexibility in compliance, cost and 
energy savings to owners and operators of existing sources. We also 
recognize that we must ensure that any emissions averaging option can 
be implemented and enforced, will be clear to sources, and most 
importantly, will be no less stringent than unit by unit implementation 
of the MACT limits.
    The EPA is proposing to establish within a NESHAP a unified 
compliance regimen that permits averaging within an existing affected 
source across individual affected units subject to the standard under 
certain conditions. Averaging across affected units is permitted only 
if it can be demonstrated that the total quantity of any regulated 
pollutant that may be emitted by that portion of a contiguous major 
source that is subject to the NESHAP will not be greater under the 
averaging mechanism than it could be if each individual affected unit 
complied separately with the applicable standard. Under this test, the 
practical outcome of averaging is equivalent to compliance with the 
MACT limits by each discrete unit, and the statutory requirement that 
the MACT standard reflect the maximum achievable emissions reductions 
is, therefore, fully effectuated.
    In past rulemakings, the EPA has generally imposed certain limits 
on the scope and nature of emissions averaging programs. These limits 
include: (1) No averaging between different types of pollutants; (2) no 
averaging between sources that are not part of the same affected 
source; (3) no averaging between individual sources within a single 
major source if the individual sources are not subject to the same 
NESHAP; and (4) no averaging between existing sources and new sources. 
This proposed rule is consistent with these limitations. First, 
emissions averaging would only be permitted between individual sources 
at a single existing affected source, and would only be permitted 
between individual sources subject to the proposed Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP. Further, emissions averaging would not be permitted 
between two or more different affected sources. Finally, new affected 
sources could not use emissions averaging. Accordingly, we have 
concluded that the averaging of emissions across affected units is 
consistent with the CAA.
    In addition, this proposed rule would require each facility that 
intends to utilize emission averaging to submit an emission averaging 
plan, which provides additional assurance that the necessary criteria 
will be met. In this emission averaging plan, the facility must include 
the identification of: (1) All units in the averaging group; (2) the 
control technology installed; (3) the process parameters that will be 
monitored; (4) the specific control technology or pollution prevention 
measure(s) to be used; (5) the test plan for the measurement of the HAP 
being averaged; and (6) the operating parameters to be monitored for 
each control device. Upon receipt, the regulatory authority would not 
be able to approve an emission averaging plan containing averaging 
between emissions of different types of pollutants or between different 
affected sources (e.g., between furnaces and crushing and screening 
equipment).
    We seek comment on use of a discount factor when emissions 
averaging is used and on the appropriate value of a discount factor, if 
used. Such discount factors (e.g., 10 percent) have been used in 
previous NESHAP, particularly where there was variation in the types of 
units within a common source category to ensure that the environmental 
benefit was being achieved. In this situation, however, the affected 
sources are more homogeneous, making emissions averaging a more 
straight forward analysis. Further, with the monitoring and compliance 
provisions that are being proposed, there is additional assurance that 
the environmental benefit will be realized. The emissions averaging 
provisions in this proposed rule are based in part on the emissions 
averaging provisions in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). The legal 
basis and rationale for the HON emissions averaging provisions were 
provided in the preamble to the final HON.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59 FR 19425; April 22, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Other Changes
    The following lists additional minor changes to the NESHAP we are 
proposing. The main focus of these changes is to ensure that the rule 
provides adequate monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and testing 
provisions to ensure that the affected sources are able to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the proposed standards. These changes 
reflect changes we have made to many other existing NESHAP to improve 
the quality of these compliance requirements. This list also includes 
proposed rule changes that address editorial corrections and plain 
language revisions:

     Reduce frequency of emission testing for the primary 
furnace control devices for PM and propose periodic testing for PM 
and other regulated pollutants. This change is possible because of 
requirement to conduct continuous monitoring. Also add a periodic 
testing requirement for the building ventilation system control 
devices and crushing and screening equipment control devices.
     Add requirement for new and existing baghouses that 
control furnace or building ventilation systems to be equipped with 
BLDS to demonstrate continuous compliance. Retain provisions for 
baghouses to have a baghouse SOP manual.
     Add requirements to implement and enforce more detailed 
requirements for

[[Page 72538]]

continuous parameter monitoring systems to ensure continuous 
compliance.
     Reduce the shop building opacity limit to 10 percent 
opacity to reflect current industry performance. Eliminate 6-minute 
excursion level because it does not provide any significant 
flexibility (sources that tend to exceed the general opacity limit 
in any 6-minute period tend to do so for several minutes so that the 
excursions for one 6-minute period is meaningless). Eliminate events 
excluded from the opacity observation as they are infrequent, can be 
avoided in some cases, are emitted from operations we intend to 
control better, and can be confusing to enforce.
     Change the format of the PM standards to reflect an 
outlet concentration format (mg/dscm). This format is the direct 
output of the emissions test and reflects the constant output nature 
of the predominant control device, i.e., a baghouse.
     Add PM continuous emissions monitoring system as an 
alternative to installing and operating a BLDS.
     Editorial changes, including revising the titles of 
sections in the subpart to better reflect the description of 
proposed requirements and to make the regulation easier for the 
reader to navigate.
     Update the recordkeeping and reporting sections to 
reflect the new monitoring requirements and monitoring options 
described above.
     Update the compliance dates to include the anticipated 
dates the proposed requirements will become effective.

F. What compliance dates are we proposing?

    We are proposing that facilities must comply with the new proposed 
requirements in this action (which are being proposed under CAA 
sections 112(d)(2), 112(d)(3), 112(d)(6) and 112(f)(2) for all affected 
sources), no later than 2 years after the effective date of this rule. 
In the period between the effective date of this rule and the 
compliance date, existing sources would continue to comply with the 
existing requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661.
    Under 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii), ``the owner or operator of an existing 
source unable to comply with a relevant standard established * * * 
pursuant to section 112(f) * * * may request that the Administrator 
grant an extension allowing the source up to 2 years after the 
standard's effective date to comply with the standard.'' The rule 
further specifies a written application for such a request. Here, the 
EPA is already fully aware of the steps needed for each source to 
comply with the proposed standards and to reasonably estimate the 
amount of time it will take each source to do so. We believe that the 
2-year extension would be warranted in all cases for sources needing to 
upgrade current practice. This includes the time needed to: Construct 
required building ventilation systems and install associated control 
devices for process fugitive sources; determine appropriate mercury and 
PAH control devices, locations, amount and type of carbon needed and 
assess potential waste disposal issues; select and install appropriate 
monitoring technologies; seek bids, select a vendor, install and test 
the new equipment; and, purchase, install and conduct QA and quality 
control measures on compliance monitoring equipment (see Estimated Time 
Needed to Achieve Compliance with The Proposed Revisions to the MACT 
standard for Ferroalloys Production Facilities, which is available in 
the docket for this proposed action). The EPA believes it reasonable to 
interpret 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(ii) to allow this plenary finding, rather 
than utilizing a facility-by-facility application process, when the 
facts are already known and a category-wide adjudication is therefore 
possible. In addition, utilizing this process allows for public comment 
on the issue which would not be possible if a case-by-case application 
process with a 90-day window for completion were used.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    We anticipate that the two manganese production ferroalloys 
production facilities currently operating in the United States will be 
affected by these proposed amendments. We do not know of any new 
facilities that are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable 
future. However, there is one facility that has a permit to produce 
ferromanganese or silicomanganese in an electric arc furnace, but it 
did so for only a brief period, several years ago. It is possible that 
this facility could resume production or another non-manganese 
ferroalloy producer could decide to commence production of 
ferromanganese or silicomanganese. One of the existing facilities is 
considering building a new manganese furnace, but their timeline and 
actual intent to go forward is unclear. Given this uncertainty, our 
impact analysis is focused on the two existing sources that are 
currently operating.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    The EPA estimated the emissions reductions that are expected to 
result from the proposed amendments to the 1999 NESHAP compared to the 
2010 baseline emissions estimates. A detailed documentation of the 
analysis can be found in: Draft Cost Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for 
the Ferroalloys Production Source Category.
    Emissions of metal HAP from ferroalloys production sources have 
declined in recent years, primarily as the result of state actions and 
also due to the industry's own initiative. The current proposal would 
cut HAP emissions (primarily particulate metal HAP such as manganese, 
arsenic and nickel) by 60 percent from their current levels. Under the 
proposed emissions limit for process fugitives emissions from the 
furnace building, we estimate that the HAP emissions reductions would 
be 81 tpy, including significant reductions of manganese. We also 
anticipate mercury reductions of 420 lb/yr and PAH reductions of 2.5 
tpy from installation of activated carbon injection controls at one 
facility. Total HAP reductions for the two facilities are estimated to 
be 84 tpy.
    Based on the emissions data available to the EPA, we believe that 
both facilities will be able to comply with the proposed emissions 
limits for HCl and formaldehyde without additional controls. There may 
be some formaldehyde emission reductions at the facility that we 
believe will be required to install an activated carbon injection 
system, but we have not quantified these reductions because of the 
uncertainty of the effectiveness of the activated carbon system 
designed for mercury and PAH removal compared to formaldehyde removal. 
We do not anticipate any reductions in HCl.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the proposed amendments, ferroalloys production facilities 
are expected to incur capital costs for the installation of ductwork 
and baghouses for building ventilation and activated carbon injection 
systems. There would also be capital costs associated with installing 
new or improved continuous monitoring systems, included installation of 
BLDS on the furnace and building ventilation baghouses that are not 
currently equipped with these systems.
    The capital costs for each facility were estimated based on the 
number and types of upgrades required. The memorandum Draft Cost 
Impacts of the Revised NESHAP for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category includes a complete description of the cost estimate methods 
used for this analysis and is available in the docket.
    The majority of the capital costs estimated for compliance with the 
amendments proposed in this action are for purchasing new control 
devices. For the shop building ventilation system, we assumed that each 
facility would

[[Page 72539]]

need to install a building ventilation system in order to comply with 
the proposed shop building emissions limits. For each facility, we 
estimated the square footage of shop building air that would need to be 
evacuated and the size of control device that would be required. 
Although the proposed amendments would provide the alternative option 
to install monitors at or near the property boundary to demonstrate 
compliance with the building ventilation requirements, we assume that 
sources would be unlikely to meet the alternative standard without 
improving the level of control in the shop building.
    To estimate the cost for the building ventilation fabric filter, we 
contacted a vendor who had recently supplied a fabric filter to one of 
the facilities to obtain assistance in developing a cost estimate for 
the installation. The equipment-only cost supplied by the vendor was 
used in conjunction with techniques described in the sixth edition of 
the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \37\ to estimate total 
installed capital cost and annual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ http://epa.gov/ttn/catc/products.html#cccinfo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our cost model included installation of the baghouse and any 
necessary fans, ductwork, and site work, including extra ductwork for 
connection to the building roof monitors. The total installed capital 
cost of three fabric filters (two at one facility, one at the second 
facility) designed for a flow-rate of 150,000 actual cubic feet per 
minute was estimated at $9.4 million. The annualized capital cost and 
operational and maintenance costs are estimated at $2.3 million, via 
techniques described in the sixth edition of the EPA Air Pollution 
Control Cost Manual. The annualized cost assumes a 20-year life 
expectancy for the unit and, to be consistent with OMB Guidance in 
Circular A-4, a 7 percent cost of capital as an estimate of the 
annualized capital cost.
    We considered installation of both fixed carbon beds and activated 
carbon injections for the control of mercury and PAH emissions. After 
talking to carbon vendors, we learned that fixed carbon beds are not a 
viable option given the size of the furnace airstream we would need to 
control. We also considered whether to put the activated carbon 
injection upstream or downstream of the existing PM control device. By 
installing the system downstream of the PM control device, we would 
avoid potential concerns with the activated carbon interfering with 
potential sale or reuse of baghouse dust or potential increase in 
mercury load in the scrubber sludge impoundment. This approach requires 
installation of a separate ``polishing'' baghouse to capture the 
injected carbon for disposal.
    Unlike activated carbon systems used primarily for control of 
volatile organic compounds, we have been told that mercury impregnated 
compounds cannot be recycled. There is concern that such downstream 
control could result in sufficient concentration of mercury in the 
baghouse dust that the facility would be required to treat such dust as 
a hazardous waste under the RCRA. However, based on conversations with 
vendors and other mercury control experts, we believe that the 
resulting waste will most likely be nonhazardous. We are seeking 
comments on the cost methodology and assumptions used to develop these 
cost estimates.
    Costs for Activated Carbon Injection (ACI) were estimated using 
cost equations developed for the Utility NESHAP.\38\ The calculated 
equipment costs for ACI and fabric filters were used in conjunction 
with techniques described in the sixth edition of the EPA Air Pollution 
Control Cost Manual to estimate total installed capital cost and annual 
costs. Our cost model included installation of the two ACI systems, one 
polishing fabric filter, and associated fans, ductwork, and site work. 
We estimate the total capital costs are $1.7 million and the annual 
costs are $1.4 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Sargent & Lundy, IPM Model--Revisions to Cost and 
Performance for APC Technologies, Mercury Control Cost Development 
Methodology Final, March, 2011. http://www.epa.gov/airmarkt/progsregs/epa-ipm/docs/append5_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated costs for the proposed change to the monitoring 
requirements for baghouses, including installation of seven new BLDS 
for four existing furnace baghouses and three building ventilation 
baghouses is $270,000 of capital cost. The capital cost for a 
differential pressure monitor to ensure that shop buildings are under 
negative pressure is $9,200. The capital cost estimated for a 
continuous parameter monitoring system for the wet scrubber at one 
facility is estimated to be $50,000. Finally, the estimated capital 
cost for carbon injection monitoring is $20,000. The capital costs for 
all additional monitoring and recordkeeping requirements, including the 
baghouse monitoring proposed, is estimated at $340,200.
    Annualized costs are estimated to be $94,000 for the BLDS, $18,000 
for the scrubber parameter monitoring system, and $6,200 for the carbon 
injection monitoring system. There is also an estimated annualized cost 
to monitor the manganese ore content for mercury emissions of $1,200. 
The estimated annual cost for reporting and recordkeeping is $37,000. 
We estimate the costs of the periodic performance testing requirements 
to be $800,000. The resulting total annualized costs are $347,000.
    The total annualized costs for the proposed rule are estimated at 
$4.0 million (2010 dollars). Table 6 provides a summary of the 
estimated costs and emissions reductions associated with the proposed 
amendments to the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP presented in today's 
action.

                Table 6--Estimated Costs and Reductions for the Proposed Standards in This Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Estimated       Estimated        Total HAP       Cost effectiveness in $ per
       Proposed amendment         capital cost     annual cost       emissions         ton total HAP reduction
                                    ($MM) \1\         ($MM)      reductions  (tpy)      (and in $ per pound)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capture and Control Process                 9.4             2.3  81 (of metal HAP)  $0.03 MM per ton.
 Fugitives.                                                                         ($14 per pound).
MACT Limits for Mercury........             1.7             1.4  0.2 (of mercury).  $6.7 MM per ton.
                                                                                    ($3,300 per pound).
MACT Limits for co-control of                NA             N/A  2.5 (of PAH).....  N/A.
 PAH.
HCl and formaldehyde                          0               0  0................  N/A.
 concentration limits.
Compliance testing over 3-year              N/A            0.26  N/A..............  N/A.
 period.
Annual average monitoring over             0.11            0.08  N/A..............  N/A.
 3-year period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72540]]

D. What are the economic impacts?

    We estimate that there will be no more than a 0.2 percent price 
change and a similar reduction in output associated with the proposal. 
The impacts to affected firms will be low because the annual compliance 
costs are quite small when compared to the annual revenues for the two 
affected parent firms (much less than 1 percent for each). The impacts 
to affected consumers should also be quite small. Thus, there will not 
be any significant impacts on affected firms and their consumers as a 
result of this proposal.

E. What are the benefits?

    We estimate the monetized benefits of this regulatory action to be 
$71 million to $170 million (2010$), at a 3 percent discount rate in 
the implementation year (2015). The monetized benefits of the 
regulatory action at a 7 percent discount rate are $63 million to $160 
million (2010$) in the same implementation year. Using alternate 
relationships between PM2.5 and premature mortality supplied 
by experts, higher and lower benefits estimates are plausible, but most 
of the expert-based estimates fall between these two estimates.\39\ A 
summary of the monetized benefits estimates at discount rates of 3 
percent and 7 percent is in Table 7 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Roman, et al., 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the 
Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in 
the U.S. Environ. Sci. Technol., 42, 7, 2268-2274.

            Table 7--Summary of the Monetized Benefits Estimates for the Ferroalloys Industry in 2015
                                               [Millions of 2010$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Estimated
                                       emission      Total monetized      Total monetized benefits  (7% discount
             Pollutant                reductions      benefits  (3%                       rate)
                                        (tpy)         discount rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5..............................          257  $71 to $170..........  $63 to $160.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\All estimates are for the implementation year (``2015'', assuming the final rule is published in January
  2012) and are rounded to two significant figures so numbers may not sum across rows. All fine particles are
  assumed to have equivalent health effects. Benefits from reducing HAPs emissions are not included.

    These benefits estimates represent the total monetized human health 
benefits for populations exposed to less PM2.5 in 2015 from 
controls installed to reduce air pollutants in order to meet these 
proposed standards. These estimates are calculated as the sum of the 
monetized value of avoided premature mortality from reducing 
PM2.5. To estimate human health benefits derived from 
reducing PM2.5, we used the general approach and methodology 
laid out in Fann, Fulcher, and Hubbell (2009).\40\ However, in this 
proposal we utilized source apportionment air quality modeling for the 
ferroalloys industry.\41\ Therefore all benefits per ton estimates are 
specific to the ferroalloys sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Fann, N., C.M. Fulcher, B.J. Hubbell. 2009. ``The influence 
of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human 
health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution.'' Air Qual Atmos 
Health (2009) 2:169-176.
    \41\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Technical 
support document: Estimating the benefit per ton of reducing PM2.5 
precursors from the ferroalloy sector (Draft); EPA: Research 
Triangle Park, NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To generate the BPT estimates, we used a model to convert emissions 
of direct PM2.5 into changes in ambient PM2.5 
levels and another model to estimate the changes in human health 
associated with that change in air quality. Finally, the monetized 
health benefits were divided by the emission reductions to create the 
BPT estimates. These models assume that all fine particles, regardless 
of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature 
mortality because there is no clear scientific evidence that would 
support the development of differential effects estimates by particle 
type. In this rule only directly emitted PM2.5 is 
considered. Direct PM2.5 emissions convert directly into 
ambient PM2.5; thus, to the extent that emissions occur in 
population areas, exposures to direct PM2.5 will tend to be 
higher than exposure to any other precursor, and monetized health 
benefits will be higher as well.
    For context, it is important to note that the magnitude of the PM 
benefits is largely driven by the concentration response function for 
premature mortality. Experts have advised the EPA to consider a variety 
of assumptions, including estimates based on both empirical 
(epidemiological) studies and judgments elicited from scientific 
experts, to characterize the uncertainty in the relationship between 
PM2.5 concentrations and premature mortality. For this rule, 
we cite two key empirical studies, the American Cancer Society cohort 
study \42\ and the extended Six Cities cohort study.\43\ In the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) \44\ for this rule, we also include 
benefits estimates derived from expert judgments and other assumptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Pope et al, 2002. ``Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, 
and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution.'' Journal 
of the American Medical Association. 287:1132-1141.
    \43\ Laden et al, 2006. ``Reduction in Fine Particulate Air 
Pollution and Mortality.'' American Journal of Respiratory and 
Critical Care Medicine. 173: 667-672.
    \44\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Final 
Regulatory Impact Analysis: PM2.5 NAAQS. Prepared by 
Office of Air and Radiation. October. Available on the Internet at 
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA strives to use the best available science to support our 
benefits analyses. We recognize that interpretation of the science 
regarding air pollution and health is dynamic and evolving. After 
reviewing the scientific literature and recent scientific advice, we 
have determined that the no-threshold model is the most appropriate 
model for assessing the mortality benefits associated with reducing 
PM2.5 exposure. Consistent with this recent advice, we are 
replacing the previous threshold sensitivity analysis with a new 
``Lowest Measured Level (LML)'' assessment. While an LML assessment 
provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM 
mortality benefits, the EPA does not view the LML as a threshold and 
continues to quantify PM-related mortality impacts using a full range 
of modeled air quality concentrations.
    Most of the estimated PM-related benefits in this rule would accrue 
to populations exposed to higher levels of PM2.5. Using the 
Pope, et al., (2002) study, 89 percent of the population is exposed at 
or above the LML of 7.5 [micro]g/m\3\. Using the Laden, et al., (2006) 
study, 31 percent of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 
[micro]g/m\3\. It is important to emphasize that we have high 
confidence in PM2.5-related effects down to the lowest LML 
of the major cohort studies. This fact is important,

[[Page 72541]]

because as we estimate PM-related mortality among populations exposed 
to levels of PM2.5 that are successively lower, our 
confidence in the results diminishes. However, our analysis shows that 
the great majority of the impacts occur at higher exposures.
    This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty 
assessment found in the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS RIA because we lack the 
necessary air quality input and monitoring data to run the benefits 
model. In addition, we have not conducted any air quality modeling for 
this rule. However, to estimate BPT specifically for this sector we did 
have some updated air quality modeling. The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 
benefits analysis provides an indication of the sensitivity of our 
results to various assumptions.
    It should be emphasized that the monetized benefits estimates 
provided above do not include benefits from several important benefit 
categories, including reducing other air pollutants, ecosystem effects, 
and visibility impairment, as well as mercury and other HAPs. Although 
we do not have sufficient information or modeling available to provide 
monetized estimates for this rulemaking, we include a qualitative 
assessment of the health effects of these other effects in the RIA \45\ 
for this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Regulatory 
Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed Manganese Ferroalloys RTR. 
September 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What demographic groups might benefit the most from this regulation?

    To examine the potential for any environmental justice (EJ) issues 
that might be associated with the source category, we performed a 
demographic analysis of the at-risk population. In this analysis, we 
evaluated the distributions of HAP-related cancer and noncancer risks 
from the Ferroalloys Production source category across different 
social, demographic and economic groups within the populations living 
near these two facilities. The methodology and the results of the 
demographic analyses are included in a technical report, Risk and 
Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations 
Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities, available in the docket for this 
action.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 8 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 km of the facilities.

                        TABLE 8--Ferroalloy Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Population with
                                                                           cancer risk at or    Population with
                                                          Nationwide         above 1-in-1       chronic hazard
                                                                                million          index above 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population....................................       285,000,000              26,000              28,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...............................................                75                  97                  97
All Other Races.....................................                25                   3                   3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White...............................................                75                  97                  97
African American....................................                12                   1                   0.8
Native American.....................................                 0.9                 0.3                 0.3
Other and Multiracial...............................                12                   2                   1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic............................................                14                   1                   0.7
Non-Hispanic........................................                86                  99                  99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.................................                13                  13                  13
Above Poverty Level.................................                87                  87                  87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma.............                13                  11                   9
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..............                87                  89                  91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Ferroalloy Production source category 
demographic analysis indicate that there are approximately 26,000 
people exposed to a cancer risk at or above one in one million and 
approximately 28,000 people exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI 
greater than 1 due to emissions from the source category (we note that 
many of those in the first risk group are the same as those in the 
second). The percentages of the at-risk population in each demographic 
group (except for White and non-Hispanic) are similar to or lower than 
their respective nationwide percentages. Implementation of the 
provisions included in this proposal is expected to significantly 
reduce the number of at-risk people due to HAP emissions from these 
sources (from 26,000 people to about 1,000 for cancer risks and from 
28,000 people to less than 10 for chronic noncancer TOSHI).

VI. Request for Comments

    We are soliciting comments on all aspects of this proposed action. 
In addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also 
interested

[[Page 72542]]

in any additional data that may help to reduce the uncertainties 
inherent in the risk assessment and other analyses. We are specifically 
interested in receiving corrections to the site-specific emissions 
profiles used for risk modeling. Such data should include supporting 
documentation in sufficient detail to allow characterization of the 
quality and representativeness of the data or information. Section VII 
of this preamble provides more information on submitting data.

VII. Submitting Data Corrections

    The site-specific emissions profiles used in the source category 
risk and demographic analyses are available for download on the RTR web 
page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. The data files 
include detailed information for each HAP emissions release point for 
the facilities included in the source category.
    If you believe that the data are not representative or are 
inaccurate, please identify the data in question, provide your reason 
for concern, and provide any ``improved'' data that you have, if 
available. When you submit data, we request that you provide 
documentation of the basis for the revised values to support your 
suggested changes. To submit comments on the data downloaded from the 
RTR Web page, complete the following steps:
    1. Within this downloaded file, enter suggested revisions to the 
data fields appropriate for that information. The data fields that may 
be revised include the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Data element                          Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Measure........................  Are control measures in place?
                                          (yes or no).
Control Measure Comment................  Select control measure from
                                          list provided, and briefly
                                          describe the control measure.
Delete.................................  Indicate here if the facility
                                          or record should be deleted.
Delete Comment.........................  Describes the reason for
                                          deletion.
Emissions Calculation Method Code For    Code description of the method
 Revised Emissions.                       used to derive emissions. For
                                          example, CEM, material
                                          balance, stack test, etc.
Emissions Process Group................  Enter the general type of
                                          emissions process associated
                                          with the specified emissions
                                          point.
Fugitive Angle.........................  Enter release angle (clockwise
                                          from true North); orientation
                                          of the y-dimension relative to
                                          true North, measured positive
                                          for clockwise starting at 0
                                          degrees (maximum 89 degrees).
Fugitive Length........................  Enter dimension of the source
                                          in the east-west (x-)
                                          direction, commonly referred
                                          to as length (ft).
Fugitive Width.........................  Enter dimension of the source
                                          in the north-south (y-)
                                          direction, commonly referred
                                          to as width (ft).
Malfunction Emissions..................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to malfunctions (tpy).
Malfunction Emissions Max Hourly.......  Enter maximum hourly
                                          malfunction emissions here (lb/
                                          hr).
North American Datum...................  Enter datum for latitude/
                                          longitude coordinates (NAD27
                                          or NAD83); if left blank,
                                          NAD83 is assumed.
Process Comment........................  Enter general comments about
                                          process sources of emissions.
REVISED Address........................  Enter revised physical street
                                          address for MACT facility
                                          here.
REVISED City...........................  Enter revised city name here.
REVISED County Name....................  Enter revised county name here.
REVISED Emissions Release Point Type...  Enter revised Emissions Release
                                          Point Type here.
REVISED End Date.......................  Enter revised End Date here.
REVISED Exit Gas Flow Rate.............  Enter revised Exit Gas Flowrate
                                          here (ft\3\/sec).
REVISED Exit Gas Temperature...........  Enter revised Exit Gas
                                          Temperature here (F).
REVISED Exit Gas Velocity..............  Enter revised Exit Gas Velocity
                                          here (ft/sec).
REVISED Facility Category Code.........  Enter revised Facility Category
                                          Code here, which indicates
                                          whether facility is a major or
                                          area source.
REVISED Facility Name..................  Enter revised Facility Name
                                          here.
REVISED Facility Registry Identifier...  Enter revised Facility Registry
                                          Identifier here, which is an
                                          ID assigned by the EPA
                                          Facility Registry System.
REVISED HAP Emissions Performance Level  Enter revised HAP Emissions
 Code.                                    Performance Level here.
REVISED Latitude.......................  Enter revised Latitude here
                                          (decimal degrees).
REVISED Longitude......................  Enter revised Longitude here
                                          (decimal degrees).
REVISED MACT Code......................  Enter revised MACT Code here.
REVISED Pollutant Code.................  Enter revised Pollutant Code
                                          here.
REVISED Routine Emissions..............  Enter revised routine emissions
                                          value here (tpy).
REVISED SCC Code.......................  Enter revised SCC Code here.
REVISED Stack Diameter.................  Enter revised Stack Diameter
                                          here (ft).
REVISED Stack Height...................  Enter revised Stack Height here
                                          (ft).
REVISED Start Date.....................  Enter revised Start Date here.
REVISED State..........................  Enter revised State here.
REVISED Tribal Code....................  Enter revised Tribal Code here.
REVISED Zip Code.......................  Enter revised Zip Code here.
Shutdown Emissions.....................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to shutdown events (tpy).
Shutdown Emissions Max Hourly..........  Enter maximum hourly shutdown
                                          emissions here (lb/hr).
Stack Comment..........................  Enter general comments about
                                          emissions release points.
Startup Emissions......................  Enter total annual emissions
                                          due to startup events (tpy).
Startup Emissions Max Hourly...........  Enter maximum hourly startup
                                          emissions here (lb/hr).
Year Closed............................  Enter date facility stopped
                                          operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 72543]]

    2. Fill in the commenter information fields for each suggested 
revision (i.e., commenter name, commenter organization, commenter email 
address, commenter phone number, and revision comments).
    3. Gather documentation for any suggested emissions revisions 
(e.g., performance test reports, material balance calculations).
    4. Send the entire downloaded file with suggested revisions in 
Microsoft[supreg] Access format and all accompanying documentation to 
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895 (through one of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble). To expedite 
review of the revisions, it would also be helpful if you submitted a 
copy of your revisions to the EPA directly at RTR@epa.gov in addition 
to submitting them to the docket.
    5. If you are providing comments on a facility, you need only 
submit one file for that facility, which should contain all suggested 
changes for all sources at that facility. We request that all data 
revision comments be submitted in the form of updated Microsoft[supreg] 
Access files, which are provided on the RTR Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant 
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million or more. Accordingly, the EPA submitted 
this action to OMB for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, the EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs 
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in 
the RIA for this proposed rule. A copy of the analysis is available in 
the docket for this action, and the analysis is briefly summarized 
above.
    The cost and benefit analyses are subject to uncertainties. More 
information on these uncertainties can be found in the RIA and in the 
cost memo for the proposal.
    A summary of the monetized benefits and net benefits for the 
proposed rule at discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent is in Table 
2 of this preamble and a more detailed discussion of the benefits is 
found in section V.E of this preamble.
    For more information on the benefits analysis, please refer to the 
RIA for this rulemaking, which is available in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA has 
been assigned EPA ICR number 2448.01. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The 
information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 
63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to 
national emissions standards. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    We are proposing new paperwork requirements to the Ferroalloys 
Production source category in the form of increased frequency and 
number of pollutants tested for stack testing as described in Sec.  
63.1625(c) and tighter parameter monitoring requirements to demonstrate 
continuous compliance as described in Sec.  63.1625(c)(6) and Sec.  
63.1626. In conjunction shop building process fugitives monitoring, we 
believe that sources are currently equipped with adequate monitoring 
equipment and that the facilities will not incur a capital cost due to 
this requirement.
    For this proposed rule, the EPA is adding affirmative defense to 
the estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an 
estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an 
assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the 
EPA has provided administrative adjustments to this ICR to show what 
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated 
with the assertion of the affirmative defense might entail. The EPA's 
estimate for the required notification, reports and records for any 
individual incident, including the root cause analysis, totals $3,141 
and is based on the time and effort required of a source to review 
relevant data, interview plant employees, and document the events 
surrounding a malfunction that has caused an exceedance of an emissions 
limit. The estimate also includes time to produce and retain the record 
and reports for submission to the EPA. The EPA provides this 
illustrative estimate of this burden because these costs are only 
incurred if there has been a violation and a source chooses to take 
advantage of the affirmative defense.
    Given the variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could 
occur, as well as differences among sources' operation and maintenance 
practices, we cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of 
malfunction-related excess emissions events for a particular source. It 
is important to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating 
the number of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative 
defense. Current historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as 
source owners or operators previously operated their facilities in 
recognition that they were exempt from the requirement to comply with 
emissions standards during malfunctions. Of the number of excess 
emissions events reported by source operators, only a small number 
would be expected to result from a malfunction (based on the definition 
above), and only a subset of excess emissions caused by malfunctions 
would result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. 
Thus, we believe the number of instances in which source operators 
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will 
be extremely small. For this reason, we estimate no more than 1 or 2 
such occurrences for all sources subject to subpart XXX over the 3-year 
period covered by this ICR. We expect to gather information on such 
events in the future and will revise this estimate as better 
information becomes available.
    We estimate two regulated entities are currently subject to subpart 
XXX and will be subject to all proposed standards. The annual 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this collection 
(averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of the 
standards) for these amendments to subpart XXX (Ferroalloys Production) 
is estimated to be $384,000 per year. This includes 483 labor hours per 
year at a total labor cost of $37,000 per year, and total non-labor 
capital and operation and maintenance costs of $347,000 per year. This 
estimate includes performance tests, notifications,

[[Page 72544]]

reporting, and recordkeeping associated with the new requirements for 
front-end process vents and back-end process operations. The total 
burden for the Federal government (averaged over the first 3 years 
after the effective date of the standard) is estimated to be 48 hours 
per year at a total labor cost of $2,200 per year. Burden is defined at 
35 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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When these 
ICRs are approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment 
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
numbers for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in the final rules.
    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, the EPA has established a public docket 
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0895. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and 
OMB. See the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice for 
where to submit comments to the 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. Because OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 
between 30 and 60 days after November 23, 2011, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by December 
23, 2011. 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 (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field. For this source category, which has 
the NAICS code 331112 (i.e., Electrometallurgical ferroalloy product 
manufacturing), the SBA small business size standard is 750 employees 
according to the SBA small business standards definitions.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Neither of 
the companies affected by this rule is considered to be a small entity 
per the definition provided in this section.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate under the 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or 
the private sector. The proposed rule would not result in expenditures 
of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal governments, in 
aggregate, or the private sector in any 1 year. The proposed rule 
imposes no enforceable duties on any State, local or tribal governments 
or the private sector. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of sections 202 or 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 because it 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments nor does it 
impose obligations upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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. None of the facilities subject 
to this action are owned or operated by state governments, and, because 
no new requirements are being promulgated, nothing in this proposed 
rule will supersede State regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 
not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA 
policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local 
governments, the 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 rule does not have tribal implications, as specified 
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    The EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed 
action from tribal officials.

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

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997) because the Agency does not believe the 
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action 
present a disproportionate risk to children. The report, Analysis of 
Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near Ferroalloys 
Facilities, shows that, prior to the implementation of the provisions 
included in this proposal, on a nationwide basis, there are 
approximately 26,000 people exposed to a cancer risk at or above one in 
one million and approximately 28,000 people exposed to a chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions from the source 
category. The percentages for all demographic groups, including 
children 18 years and younger, are similar to or lower than their 
respective nationwide percentages. Further, implementation of the 
provisions included in this proposal is expected to significantly 
reduce the number of at-risk people due to HAP emissions from these 
sources (from between 26,000 to 28,000 people to about 1,000), 
providing significant benefit to all the demographic groups in the at-
risk population.
    This proposed rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for 
everyone, including children. This action proposes emissions limits at 
the levels based on MACT, as required by the CAA. Based on our 
analysis, we believe that this rule does not have a disproportionate 
impact on children.
    The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed 
studies and data that assess effects of

[[Page 72545]]

early life exposure to manganese, lead, arsenic, nickel, or mercury.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined under 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This 
action will not create any new requirements and therefore no additional 
costs for sources in the energy supply, distribution, or use sectors.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs the 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 the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 10, 26A, 30B, 
316, CARB 429, SW-846 Method 3052, SW-846 Method 7471b and EPA water 
Method 1631E of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. No applicable VCS were 
identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 316, 1631E and CARB 429, SW-846 
Method 3052, and SW-846 Method 7471b.
    Two VCS were identified acceptable alternatives to EPA test methods 
for the purposes of this rule. The VCS standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-
1981-Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' is an acceptable 
alternative to Method 3B. The VCS ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method 
for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere'' is an acceptable alternative to Method 9 under specified 
conditions. The Agency identified 18 VCS as being potentially 
applicable to these methods cited in this rule. However, the EPA 
determined that the 18 candidate VCS would not be practical due to lack 
of equivalency, documentation, validation data and other important 
technical and policy considerations. The 18 VCS and other information 
and conclusions, including the search and review results, are in the 
docket for this proposed rule. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect 
of this proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to 
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.
    Under section 63.7(f) and section 63.8(f) of Subpart A of the 
General Provisions, a source may apply to the EPA for permission to use 
alternative test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in 
place of any required testing methods, performance specifications, or 
procedures in the proposed rule.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    The EPA has proposed that the current health risks posed by 
emissions from this source category are unacceptable. There are about 
26,000 to 28,000 people nationwide that are currently subject to health 
risks which may not be considered neglible (i.e., cancer risks greater 
than one in one million or chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1) due 
to emissions from this source category. The demographic makeup of this 
``at-risk'' population is similar to the national distribution for all 
demographic groups. The proposed rule will reduce the number of people 
in this at-risk group from between 26,000-28,000 people to about 1,000 
people. Based on this analysis, the EPA is proposing that the 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: November 4, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 63 of title 40, 
chapter I, 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.

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraph (b)(69);
    b. Revising paragraph (i)(1);
    c. Revising paragraph (p)(6) and adding paragraphs (p)(8) and 
(p)(9); and
    d. By adding paragraphs (r)(1) and (r)(2).

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

    (b) * * *
    (69) ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' IBR approved for 
Sec.  63.1625(b)(9).
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.1625(b)(3)(iii), 63.3166(a)(3), 
63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 
63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 
63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), 
63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), 
63.11410(j)(1)(iii), 63.11551(a)(2)(i)(C), table 5 to subpart DDDDD of 
this part, table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ of this part, and table 4 to 
subpart JJJJJJ of this part.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (6) SW-846-7471B, Mercury in Solid Or Semisolid Waste (Manual Cold-
Vapor Technique), Revision 2, February 2007, in EPA Publication No. SW-
846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical 
Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b)(10), table 6 
to subpart DDDDD of this part and table 5 to subpart JJJJJJ of this 
part.
* * * * *
    (8) SW-846-Method 3052, Microwave Assisted Acid Digestion Of 
Siliceous

[[Page 72546]]

and Organically Based Matrices, Revision 0, December 1996, in EPA 
Publication No. SW-846, Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, 
Physical/Chemical Methods, Third Edition, IBR approved for Sec.  
63.1625(b)(10).
    (9) Method 1631, Revision E: Mercury in Water by Oxidation, Purge 
and Trap, and Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence Spectrometry, August 2002 
located at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/metals/mercury/upload/2007_07_10_methods_;method--mercury--1631.pdf, IBR approved 
for Sec.  63.1625(b)(10).
    (r) The following material is available from the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB), 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California 95814, 
(http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf).
    (1) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources, Adopted September 1989, 
Amended July 1997, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b)(11).
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

Subpart XXX--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.1620 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1620  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a new or 
existing ferromanganese and/or silicomanganese production facility that 
is a major source or is co-located at a major source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions.
    (b) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate any of 
the following equipment as part of a ferromanganese or silicomanganese 
production facility:
    (1) Open, semi-sealed, or sealed submerged arc furnace,
    (2) Casting operations,
    (3) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process,
    (4) Crushing and screening operations,
    (5) Outdoor fugitive dust sources.
    (c) A new affected source is any of the sources listed in paragraph 
(b) of this section for which construction or reconstruction commenced 
after November 23, 2011.
    (d) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese production facilities subject to this subpart.
    (e) If you are subject to the provisions of this subpart, you are 
also subject to title V permitting requirements under 40 CFR parts 70 
or 71, as applicable.
    (f) Emission standards in this subpart apply at all times.
    4. Section 63.1621 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1621  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) Existing affected sources must be in compliance with the 
provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1620 through 63.1630 no later 
than [2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (b) Affected sources in existence prior to November 23, 2011 must 
be in compliance with the provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 
through 63.1661 by November 21, 2001 and until [2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE 
DATE OF FINAL RULE]. As of [2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to 
apply to affected sources in existence prior to November 23, 2011. The 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 remain enforceable at 
a source for its activities prior to [2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE].
    (c) If you own or operate a new affected source that commences 
construction or reconstruction after November 23, 2011, you must comply 
with the requirements of this subpart by [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE], or upon startup of operations, whichever is later.
    5. Section 63.1622 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1622  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (Act), in 
subpart A of this part, or in this section as follows:
    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
    Bag leak detection system means a system that is capable of 
continuously monitoring particulate matter (dust) loadings in the 
exhaust of a baghouse in order 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, light scattering, 
light transmittance, or other effect to continuously monitor relative 
particulate matter loadings.
    Building ventilation means a system of ventilated ducts designed to 
place the shop building under negative pressure and to capture process 
fugitive emissions from the shop building.
    Capture system means the collection of components used to capture 
the 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.
    Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy is 
removed from the tapping station until pouring into casting molds or 
beds is completed. This includes the following operations: pouring 
alloy from one ladle to another, slag separation, slag removal, and 
ladle transfer by crane, truck, or other conveyance.
    Crushing and screening equipment means the crushers, grinders, 
mills, screens and conveying systems used to crush, size, and prepare 
for packing manganese-containing materials, including raw materials, 
intermediate products, and final products.
    Electric arc furnace means any furnace where electrical energy is 
converted to heat energy by transmission of current between electrodes 
partially submerged in the furnace charge.
    Ladle treatment means a post-tapping process including metal and 
alloy additions where chemistry adjustments are made in the ladle after 
furnace smelting to achieve a specified product.
    Local ventilation means hoods and ductwork designed to capture 
process fugitive emissions close to the area where the emissions are 
generated (e.g., tap hoods).
    Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process means the reduction of the 
carbon content of ferromanganese through the use of oxygen.
    Outdoor fugitive dust source means a stationary source from which 
hazardous air pollutant-bearing particles are discharged to the 
atmosphere due to wind or mechanical inducement such as vehicle 
traffic. Fugitive dust sources include plant roadways, yard areas, and 
outdoor material storage and transfer operations.
    Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile 
equipment, such as fork lifts, front end loaders, or trucks, carrying 
manganese-bearing materials. Excluded from this definition are employee 
and visitor parking areas, provided they are not subject to traffic by 
plant mobile equipment.
    Primary emissions means gases and emissions collected by hoods and 
ductwork located above an open furnace or under the cover of a semi-
closed or sealed furnace.

[[Page 72547]]

    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions that is associated with ferromanganese or 
silicomanganese production, but is not the primary exhaust stream from 
an electric arc furnace, MOR or crushing and screening equipment, and 
is not a fugitive dust source. Process fugitive sources include 
emissions that escape capture from the electric arc furnace, tapping 
operations, casting operations, ladle treatment, MOR or crushing or 
screening equipment.
    Shop building means the building which houses one or more electric 
arc furnaces.
    Shutdown means the cessation of operation of an affected source for 
any purpose.
    Startup means the setting in operation of an affected source for 
any purpose.
    Tapping emissions means the gases and emissions associated with 
removal of product from the electric arc furnace under normal operating 
conditions, such as removal of metal under normal pressure and movement 
by gravity down the spout into the ladle and filling the ladle.
    Tapping period means the time from when a tap hole is opened until 
the time a tap hole is closed.
    6. Section 63.1623 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1623  What are the emissions standards for new, reconstructed 
and existing facilities?

    (a) Electric arc furnaces. You must install, operate, and maintain 
a capture system that collects the emissions from each electric arc 
furnace (including charging, melting, and tapping operations and 
emissions from any vent stacks) and conveys the collected emissions to 
a control device for the removal of the pollutants specified in the 
emissions standards specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of 
this section.
    (1) Particulate matter emissions.
    (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases (including primary and 
tapping emissions) containing particulate matter in excess of 9.3 
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), corrected to 2 
percent carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere from any 
new or reconstructed electric arc furnace. This emission limit must be 
met by any furnace vent stacks.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases (including primary and 
tapping emissions) containing particulate matter in excess of 24 mg/
dscm, corrected to 2 percent CO2 into the atmosphere from 
any existing electric arc furnace. This emission limit must be met by 
any furnace vent stacks.
    (2) Mercury emissions. You must not discharge exhaust gases 
(including primary and tapping emissions) containing mercury emissions 
in excess of 16 [mu]g/dscm, corrected to 2 percent CO2 into 
the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed or existing electric arc 
furnace.
    (3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. You must not 
discharge exhaust gases (including primary and tapping emissions) 
containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 89 
[mu]g/dscm, corrected to 2 percent CO2 into the atmosphere 
from any new, reconstructed or existing electric arc furnace.
    (4) Hydrochloric acid emissions. You must not discharge exhaust 
gases (including primary and tapping emissions) containing hydrochloric 
acid emissions in excess of 809 [mu]g/dscm, corrected to 2 percent 
CO2 into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed or 
existing electric arc furnace.
    (5) Formaldehyde emissions. You must not discharge exhaust gases 
(including primary and tapping emissions) containing formaldehyde 
emissions in excess of 201 [mu]g/dscm, corrected to 2 percent 
CO2 into the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed or 
existing electric arc furnace.
    (b) Process fugitive emissions.
    (1) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture system that 
collects all of the process fugitive emissions from the shop building 
(including tapping, casting, ladle treatment and crushing and screening 
equipment process fugitives) at a negative pressure of at least 0.007 
inches of water, and conveys the collected emissions to a control 
device. You must not discharge into the atmosphere emissions from the 
control device containing particulate matter in excess of 24 mg/dscm, 
corrected to 2 percent CO2.
    (2) You must not cause emissions exiting from a shop building, to 
exceed 10 percent opacity for more than one 6-minute period.
    (3) As an alternative to meeting the requirements specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you can elect to demonstrate 
compliance by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section.
    (i) You must install compliance monitors on or near the plant 
boundary, at locations approved by the Administrator, to demonstrate 
that the manganese concentration in air is at all times maintained 
below a 10-sample rolling average value of 0.10 [mu]g/m3 at each 
monitor.
    (A) Samples must be collected every 6 days. All samples are 24-hr 
integrated samples.
    (B) Calculate a 10-sample rolling average to demonstrate compliance 
with the action level specified in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section. 
Missed or invalidated samples must be made up only on the established 
site-specific 1- in 6-day schedule to include the required number of 
makeup samples to achieve a minimum of 10 valid samples).
    (C) Collect particles in the PM10 size fraction at a set flow rate 
of 16.7 l/minute using a 47 mm Teflon filter.
    (D) Conduct the analysis using an EPA method (such as compendium 
method IO-3.5) and ensure the manganese method detection limit (MDL) is 
no greater than 0.01 [mu]g/m\3\.
    (E) All data, to include values below MDL, must be reported. Under 
no circumstances are data value substitutions (e.g., \1/2\ MDL) 
acceptable.
    (ii)(A) The monitoring system must include at least two ambient 
monitors and at least one of these monitors must be in a location that 
is expected to have the highest air concentrations at or near the 
facility boundary based on ambient dispersion modeling or other methods 
approved by the Administrator.
    (B) You must submit a written plan describing and explaining the 
basis for the design and adequacy of the compliance monitoring network, 
the sampling, analytical and quality assurance procedures and the 
justification for any data adjustments within 45 days after the 
effective date of this subpart.
    (C) The Administrator at any time may require changes in or 
expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling and 
more frequent sampling, or revisions to the analytical protocols and 
network design.
    (c) Local ventilation emissions. If you operate local ventilation 
to capture tapping, casting, or ladle treatment emissions and direct 
them to a control device other than one associated with the electric 
arc furnace, you must not discharge into the atmosphere any captured 
emissions containing particulate matter in excess of 24 mg/dscm, 
corrected to 2 percent CO2.
    (d) MOR process. You must not discharge into the atmosphere from 
any new, reconstructed or existing MOR process exhaust gases containing 
particulate matter in excess of 3.9 mg/dscm, corrected to 2 percent 
CO2.
    (e) Crushing and screening equipment. You must not discharge into 
the atmosphere from any new,

[[Page 72548]]

reconstructed, or existing piece of equipment associated with crushing 
and screening exhaust gases containing particulate matter in excess of 
13 mg/dscm.
    (f) Emissions Averaging Option.
    (1) As an alternative to meeting the emission standards specified 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section on an electric arc 
furnace-specific basis, and if you have more than one existing electric 
arc furnace located at one or more contiguous properties, which are 
under common control of the same person (or persons under common 
control), you may demonstrate compliance by emission averaging among 
the existing electric arc furnaces, if your averaged emissions for such 
electric arc furnaces are equal to or less than the applicable emission 
limit.
    (2) As an alternative to meeting the emission standard specified in 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section on a building ventilation control 
device-specific basis, and if you have more than one existing building 
ventilation control device located at one or more contiguous 
properties, which are under common control of the same person (or 
persons under common control), you may demonstrate compliance by 
emission averaging among the existing building ventilation control 
devices, if your averaged emissions for such building ventilation 
control devices are equal to or less than the applicable emission 
limit.
    (3) As an alternative to meeting the emission standard specified in 
paragraph (e) of this section on a crushing and screening equipment 
control device-specific basis, and if you have more than one existing 
crushing and screening equipment control device located at one or more 
contiguous properties, which are under common control of the same 
person (or persons under common control), you may demonstrate 
compliance by emission averaging among the existing crushing or 
screening equipment control devices, if your averaged emissions for 
such crushing or screening equipment control devices are equal to or 
less than the applicable emission limit.
    (g) The averaged emissions rate from the existing equipment 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section participating in the 
emissions averaging option must be in compliance with the emission 
standards specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of this section by 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  63.1621. You must develop, and 
submit to the applicable regulatory authority for review and approval 
upon request, an implementation plan for emission averaging according 
to the following procedures and requirements in paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (g)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must submit the implementation plan no later than 180 days 
before the date that the facility intends to demonstrate compliance 
using the emission averaging option.
    (2) You must include the information contained in paragraphs 
(g)(2)(i) through (g)(2)(vii) of this section in your implementation 
plan for all emission sources included in an emissions average:
    (i) The identification of all existing equipment specified in 
paragraph (f) of this section in the applicable averaging group, 
including for each either the applicable HAP emission level or the 
control technology installed as of [DATE 60 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE 
OF THE FINAL RULE] and the date on which you are requesting emission 
averaging to commence;
    (ii) A description of how you will comply with the monitoring 
procedures specified in Sec.  63.1626 for each averaging group;
    (iii) The specific control technology to be used for each piece of 
equipment specified in paragraph (f) of this section in the averaging 
group and the date of its installation or application;
    (iv) The test plan for the measurement of particulate matter, 
hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde and mercury emissions, as applicable, 
in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  63.1625 and the planned 
test dates to ensure that averaged units are tested concurrently or 
with minimal differences in the testing dates;
    (v) The operating parameters to be monitored for each control 
system or device consistent with Sec.  63.1626 and a description of how 
the operating limits will be determined;
    (vi) If you request to monitor an alternative operating parameter 
pursuant to Sec.  63.8, you must also include:
    (A) A description of the parameter(s) to be monitored and an 
explanation of the criteria used to select the parameter(s); and
    (B) A description of the methods and procedures that will be used 
to demonstrate that the parameter indicates proper operation of the 
control device; the frequency and content of monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements; and a demonstration, to the satisfaction of 
the applicable regulatory authority, that the proposed monitoring 
frequency is sufficient to represent control device operating 
conditions; and
    (vii) A demonstration that compliance with each of the applicable 
emission limit(s) will be achieved under representative operating 
conditions.
    (3) The regulatory authority shall review and approve or disapprove 
the plan according to the following criteria:
    (i) Whether the content of the plan includes all of the information 
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Whether the plan presents sufficient information to determine 
that compliance will be achieved and maintained.
    (4) The applicable regulatory authority shall not approve an 
emission averaging implementation plan containing any of the following 
provisions:
    (i) Any averaging between emissions of differing pollutants or 
between differing sources; or
    (ii) The inclusion of any emission source other than an existing 
unit in the same source category.
    (h) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of 
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will 
be based on information available to the Administrator that may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
    7. Section 63.1624 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1624  What are the operational and work practice standards for 
new, reconstructed and existing facilities?

    (a) Process fugitives sources.
    (1) If you are complying with the standard specified in Sec.  
63.1623(b)(1), you must prepare and operate according to a process 
fugitives ventilation plan for each shop building.
    (2) You prepare a process fugitives ventilation schematic for each 
shop building indicating duct size and location, enclosure and hood 
sizes and locations, control device types, size and locations, and 
exhaust locations should be developed. The process fugitives 
ventilation system schematic must be annotated with the location and 
size of each shop building air supply unit and each shop building 
exhaust fan.
    (3) You must conduct a baseline survey to establish actual air flow 
and static pressure values before and after each emission control 
device and in each branch of the process ventilation system after each 
enclosure or hood. You must also determine actual air flow

[[Page 72549]]

and static pressure values for each shop building air supply and 
exhaust device. You must demonstrate that air supply and exhaust are 
balanced.
    (4) You must repeat the baseline survey at least every 5 years or 
following significant ventilation system changes.
    (5) The process fugitives ventilation plan must contain a 
description of each enclosure and hood with explanation demonstrating 
that adequate control of the process source is being achieved or 
actions planned to improve performance.
    (6) The process fugitives ventilation plan must be adequate to 
ensure that the building is continuously maintained at a negative 
pressure of at least 0.007 inches of water.
    (7) The process fugitives ventilation plan must identify critical 
maintenance actions, schedule to complete, and verification record of 
completion.
    (8) You must submit a copy of the process fugitives ventilation 
plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the applicable 
compliance date for the affected source as specified in Sec.  63.1621. 
The requirement for you to operate the facility according to a written 
process fugitives ventilation plan must be incorporated in the 
operating permit for the facility that is issued by the designated 
permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
    (b) Outdoor fugitive dust sources.
    (1) You must prepare, and at all times operate according to, an 
outdoor fugitive dust control plan that describes in detail the 
measures that will be put in place to control outdoor fugitive dust 
emissions from the individual fugitive dust sources at the facility.
    (2) You must submit a copy of the outdoor fugitive dust control 
plan to the designated permitting authority on or before the applicable 
compliance date for the affected source as specified in Sec.  63.1621. 
The requirement for you to operate the facility according to a written 
outdoor fugitive dust control plan must be incorporated in the 
operating permit for the facility that is issued by the designated 
permitting authority under part 70 of this chapter.
    (3) You are permitted to use existing manuals that describe the 
measures in place to control outdoor fugitive dust sources required as 
part of a State implementation plan or other federally enforceable 
requirement for particulate matter to satisfy the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    8. Section 63.1625 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1625  What are the performance test and compliance 
requirements for new, reconstructed and existing facilities?

    (a) Performance testing.
    (1) All performance tests must be conducted according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7 of subpart A.
    (2) Each performance test must consist of three separate and 
complete runs using the applicable test methods.
    (3) Each run must be conducted under conditions that are 
representative of normal process operations.
    (4) Performance tests conducted on air pollution control devices 
serving electric arc furnaces must be conducted such that at least one 
tapping period, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, whichever 
is less, is included in at least two of the three runs. The sampling 
time for each run must be at least as long as three times the average 
tapping period of the tested furnace, but no less than 60 minutes.
    (5) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator 
specifies based on representative performance of the affected source 
for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
    (b) Test methods. The following test methods in appendices of part 
60 or 63 of this chapter or as specified elsewhere must be used to 
determine compliance with the emission standards.
    (1) Method 1 of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select the 
sampling port location and the number of traverse points.
    (2) Method 2 of Appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the 
volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
    (3)(i) Method 3A or 3B of Appendix A-2 of 40 CFR part 60 (with 
integrated bag sampling) to determine the outlet stack and inlet oxygen 
and CO2 content.
    (ii) You must measure CO2 concentrations at both the 
inlet and outlet of the positive pressure fabric filter in conjunction 
with the pollutant sampling in order to correct pollutant 
concentrations for dilution and to determine isokinetic sampling rates.
    (iii) As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC-19-10-
1981-Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' may be used 
(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14).
    (4) Method 4 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the 
moisture content of the stack gas.
    (5)(i) Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the 
particulate matter concentration of the stack gas for negative pressure 
baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with stacks.
    (ii) Method 5D of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
particulate matter concentration and volumetric flow rate of the stack 
gas for positive pressure baghouses without stacks.
    (iii) The sample volume for each run must be a minimum of 4.0 cubic 
meters (141.2 cubic feet). For Method 5 testing only, you may choose to 
collect less than 4.0 cubic meters per run provided that the filterable 
mass collected (e.g., net filter mass plus mass of nozzle, probe and 
filter holder rinses) is equal to or greater than 10 mg. If the total 
mass collected for two of three of the runs is less than 10 mg, you 
must conduct at least one additional test run that produces at least 10 
mg of filterable mass collected (i.e., at a greater sample volume). 
Report the results of all test runs.
    (6) Method 30B of Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to measure 
mercury. Apply the minimum sample volume determination procedures as 
per the method.
    (7)(i) Method 26A of Appendix A-8 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
outlet stack or inlet hydrochloric acid concentration.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 2 cubic meters.
    (8)(i) Method 316 of Appendix A of 40 CFR part 63 to determine 
outlet stack or inlet formaldehyde.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 cubic meter.
    (9) Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
opacity. ASTM D7520-09, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' may be used 
(incorporated by reference, see 40 CFR 63.14) with the following 
conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-09, you 
or the DCOT vendor must present the plumes in front of various 
backgrounds of color and contrast representing conditions anticipated 
during field use such as blue sky, trees and mixed backgrounds (clouds 
and/or a sparse tree stand).
    (ii) You must also have standard operating procedures in place 
including daily or other frequency quality checks to ensure the 
equipment is within manufacturing specifications as outlined in Section 
8.1 of ASTM D7520-09.
    (iii) You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 
Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data 
sheets and all

[[Page 72550]]

raw unaltered JPEGs used for opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) You or the DCOT vendor must have a minimum of four (4) 
independent technology users apply the software to determine the 
visible opacity of the 300 certification plumes. For each set of 25 
plumes, the user may not exceed 15 percent opacity of any one reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this approved alternative does not provide or imply a 
certification or validation of any vendor's hardware or software. The 
onus to maintain and verify the certification and/or training of the 
DCOT camera, software and operator in accordance with ASTM D7520-09 and 
these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
    (10) Methods to determine the mercury content of manganese ore 
including a total metals digestion technique, SW-846 Method 3052, and a 
mercury specific analysis method, SW-846 Method 7471b (Cold Vapor AA) 
or Water Method 1631E (Cold Vapor Atomic Fluorescence).
    (11) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 429, 
Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Emissions from 
Stationary Sources to determine total PAH emissions. The method is 
available from California Resources Board, 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, 
California 95814, (http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf).
    (12) The owner or operator may use alternative measurement methods 
approved by the Administrator following the procedures described in 
Sec.  63.7(f) of subpart A.
    (c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards.
    (1) You must conduct an initial performance test for air pollution 
control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.  63.1623(a) through (e) 
to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission standards.
    (2) You must conduct performance tests every 5 years for the air 
pollution control devices and vent stacks associated with the electric 
arc furnaces and furnace building ventilation systems. The results of 
these periodic tests will be used to demonstrate compliance with the 
emission standards in Sec.  63.1623(a)(1) through (a)(5), (b)(1) and 
(b)(2), as applicable.
    (3) For any air pollution control device that serves tapping 
emissions combined with non-furnace emissions, such as the MOR process, 
or equipment associated with crushing and screening, casting or ladle 
treatment, you must conduct a performance test at least every 5 years. 
The results of these tests will be used to demonstrate compliance with 
the emission standards in Sec.  63.1623(c) through (e), as applicable.
    (4) Compliance is demonstrated for all sources performing emissions 
tests if the average concentration for the three runs comprising the 
performance test does not exceed the standard or if you successfully 
comply with the emission averaging option specified in Sec.  
63.1623(f).
    (5) Operating Limits. You must establish parameter operating limits 
according to paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (c)(5)(vi) of this section. 
Unless otherwise specified, compliance with each established operating 
limit shall be demonstrated for each 24-hour operating day.
    (i) For a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must establish the 
minimum liquid flow rate and pressure drop as your operating limits 
during the three-run performance test. If you use a wet particulate 
matter scrubber and you conduct separate performance tests for 
particulate matter, you must establish one set of minimum liquid flow 
rate and pressure drop operating limits. If you conduct multiple 
performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid flow rate and 
pressure drop operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average 
values established during the performance tests.
    (ii) For a wet acid gas scrubber, you must establish the minimum 
liquid flow rate and pH, as your operating limits during the three-run 
performance test. If you use a wet acid gas scrubber and you conduct 
separate performance tests for hydrochloric acid, you must establish 
one set of minimum liquid flow rate and pH operating limits. If you 
conduct multiple performance tests, you must set the minimum liquid 
flow rate and pH operating limits at the highest minimum hourly average 
values established during the performance tests.
    (iii) For a dry scrubber, dry sorbent injection (DSI) system or 
activated carbon injection system, you must establish the minimum 
hourly average sorbent or activated carbon injection rate, as measured 
during the three-run performance test as your operating limit.
    (iv) For emission sources with fabric filters that choose to 
demonstrate continuous compliance through bag leak detection systems 
you must install a bag leak detection system according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.1626(d), and you must set your operating limit 
such that the sum duration of bag leak detection system alarms does not 
exceed 5 percent of the process operating time during a 6-month period.
    (v) If you choose to demonstrate continuous compliance through a 
particulate matter CEMS, you must determine an operating limit 
(particulate matter concentration in mg/dscm) during performance 
testing for initial particulate matter compliance. The operating limit 
will be the average of the PM filterable results of the three Method 5 
or Method 5D of Appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 performance test runs. 
To determine continuous compliance, the hourly average PM 
concentrations will be averaged on a rolling 30 operating day basis. 
Each 30 operating day average would have to meet the PM operating 
limit.
    (v) For any furnace stack, you must establish a weighted average 
mercury concentration of the manganese ore being used in the furnace 
during the emission test. Collect a sample of all ores used in the 
furnace and prepare a weighted average based on the relative mass of 
each type of ore used in the furnace charge.
    (d) Compliance demonstration with shop building opacity standards.
    (1)(i) If you are subject to Sec.  63.1623(b)(2), you must conduct 
initial opacity observations of the shop building to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable opacity standards according to Sec.  
63.6(h)(5), which addresses the conduct of opacity or visible emission 
observations.
    (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to EPA 
Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4, for a minimum of 60 minutes 
to include at one, or at least 20 minutes of a tapping period, 
whichever is less, in at least two of the three runs to coincide with 
each performance test run of the associated control device.
    (iii) Repeat this opacity observation at least every 5 years during 
the periodic performance tests required pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of 
this section.
    (2)(i) When demonstrating initial compliance with the shop building 
opacity standard, as required by paragraph (d)(1) of this section, you 
must simultaneously establish parameter values for one of the 
following: The capture system fan motor amperes and all capture system 
damper positions, the total volumetric flow rate to the air pollution 
control device and all capture system damper positions, or volumetric 
flow rate through each separately ducted hood that comprises the 
capture system.
    (ii) You may petition the Administrator to reestablish these 
parameters whenever you can demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that the electric arc furnace operating conditions upon 
which the

[[Page 72551]]

parameters were previously established are no longer applicable. The 
values of these parameters determined during the most recent 
demonstration of compliance must be maintained at the appropriate level 
for each applicable period.
    (iii) You will demonstrate compliance by installing, operating, and 
maintaining a digital differential pressure device that shows you are 
maintaining the shop building under negative pressure to at least 0.007 
inches of water.
    (3) You will demonstrate continuing compliance with the opacity 
standards by following the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1626(h) and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified 
in Sec.  63.1629(b)(5).
    (e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice 
standards.
    (1) Process fugitives sources. You will demonstrate compliance by 
developing and maintaining a process fugitives ventilation plan, by 
reporting any deviations from the plan and by taking necessary 
corrective actions to correct deviations or deficiencies.
    (2) Outdoor fugitive dust sources. You will demonstrate compliance 
by developing and maintaining an outdoor fugitive dust control plan, by 
reporting any deviations from the plan and by taking necessary 
corrective actions to correct deviations or deficiencies.
    (3) Baghouses equipped with bag leak detection systems. You will 
demonstrate compliance with the bag leak detection system requirements 
by developing analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating 
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection 
systems in Sec.  60.57c(h).
    9. Section 63.1626 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1626  What monitoring requirements must I meet?

    (a) Baghouse Monitoring. You must prepare, and at all times operate 
according to, a standard operating procedures manual that describes in 
detail procedures for inspection, maintenance, and bag leak detection 
and corrective action plans for all baghouses (fabric filters or 
cartridge filters) that are used to control process vents, process 
fugitive, or outdoor fugitive dust emissions from any source subject to 
the emissions standards in Sec.  63.1623, including those used to 
control emissions from building ventilation.
    (b) You must submit the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required by paragraph (a) of this section to the 
Administrator or delegated authority for review and approval.
    (c) Unless the baghouse is equipped with a bag leak detection 
system, the procedures that you specify in the standard operating 
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance must, at a 
minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of 
this section.
    (1) You must observe the baghouse outlet on a daily basis for the 
presence of any visible emissions.
    (2) In addition to the daily visible emissions observation, you 
must conduct the following activities:
    (i) Weekly confirmation that dust is being removed from hoppers 
through visual inspection, or equivalent means of ensuring the proper 
functioning of removal mechanisms.
    (ii) Daily check of compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses.
    (iii) An appropriate methodology for monitoring cleaning cycles to 
ensure proper operation.
    (iv) Monthly check of bag cleaning mechanisms for proper 
functioning through visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (v) Quarterly visual check of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that the bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or lying on their sides. Such checks are not required for shaker-
type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring loaded) devices.
    (vi) Quarterly confirmation of the physical integrity of the 
baghouse structure through visual inspection of the baghouse interior 
for air leaks.
    (vii) Semiannual inspection of fans for wear, material buildup, and 
corrosion through visual inspection, vibration detectors, or equivalent 
means.
    (d) Bag leak detection system.
    (1) For each baghouse used to control emissions from an electric 
arc furnace or building ventilation system, you must install, operate, 
and maintain a bag leak detection system according to paragraphs (d)(2) 
through (d)(4) of this section, unless a system meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (i) of this section, for a CEMS and 
continuous emissions rate monitoring system, is installed for 
monitoring the concentration of particulate matter. You may choose to 
install, operate and maintain a bag leak detection system for any other 
baghouse in operation at the facility according to paragraphs (d)(2) 
through (d)(4) of this section.
    (2) The procedures you specified in the standard operating 
procedures manual for baghouse maintenance must include, at a minimum, 
a preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
baghouse manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term 
maintenance.
    (3) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(viii) of this 
section.
    (i) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 1.0 milligram per dry standard cubic meter (0.00044 grains per 
actual cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an alarm 
system that will alarm when an increase in relative particulate 
loadings is detected over a preset level.
    (iv) You must install and operate the bag leak detection system in 
a manner consistent with the guidance provided in ``Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection 
Guidance'' EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997 (incorporated by reference) 
and the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations for 
installation, operation, and adjustment of the system.
    (v) The initial adjustment of the system must, at a minimum, 
consist of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the 
sensitivity (range) and the averaging period of the device, and 
establishing the alarm set points and the alarm delay time.
    (vi) Following initial adjustment, you must not adjust the 
sensitivity or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm 
delay time, except as detailed in the approved standard operating 
procedures manual required under paragraph (a) of this section. You 
cannot increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease 
the sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless 
such adjustment follows a complete baghouse inspection that 
demonstrates that the baghouse is in good operating condition.
    (vii) You must install the bag leak detector downstream of the 
baghouse.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (4) You must include in the standard operating procedures manual 
required by paragraph (a) of this section a corrective action plan that 
specifies the procedures to be followed in the case of a bag leak 
detection system alarm. The corrective action plan must include, at a 
minimum, the procedures that you will use to determine and record the 
time and cause of the alarm as well as

[[Page 72552]]

the corrective actions taken to minimize emissions as specified in 
paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (d)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (i) The procedures used to determine the cause of the alarm must be 
initiated within 30 minutes of the alarm.
    (ii) The cause of the alarm must be alleviated by taking the 
necessary corrective action(s) that may include, but not be limited to, 
those listed in paragraphs (d)(4)(i)(A) through (d)(4)(i)(F) of this 
section.
    (A) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken filter 
elements, or any other malfunction that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (B) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (C) Replacing defective bags or filter media, or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (D) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (E) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (F) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (e) If you use a wet particulate matter scrubber, you must collect 
the pressure drop and liquid flow rate monitoring system data according 
to Sec.  63.1629, reduce the data to 24-hour block averages and 
maintain the 24-hour average pressure drop and liquid flow-rate at or 
above the operating limits established during the performance test 
according to Sec.  63.1625(c)(5)(i).
    (f) [Reserved]
    (g) If you use a dry scrubber, DSI sorbent injection or carbon 
injection, you must collect the sorbent or carbon injection rate 
monitoring system data for the dry scrubber, DSI or ACI according to 
Sec.  63.1629, reducing the data to 24-hour block averages; and 
maintain the 24-hour average sorbent or carbon injection rate at or 
above the operating limit established during the performance test 
according to Sec.  63.1625(c)(5)(iii).
    (h) Shop building opacity. In order to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the opacity standards in Sec.  63.1623, you must comply 
with one of the monitoring options in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(3) 
or (h)(8) of this section. The selected option must be consistent with 
that selected during the initial performance test described in Sec.  
63.1625(d)(2). Alternatively, you may use the provisions of Sec.  
63.8(f) to request approval to use an alternative monitoring method.
    (1) You must check and record the control system fan motor amperes 
and capture system damper positions once per shift.
    (2) You must install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device 
that continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each 
separately ducted hood.
    (3) You must install, calibrate, and maintain a monitoring device 
that continuously records the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the 
air pollution control device and check and record the capture system 
damper positions once per shift.
    (4) The flow rate monitoring devices must meet the following 
requirements:
    (i) Be installed in an appropriate location in the exhaust duct 
such that reproducible flow rate monitoring will result.
    (ii) Have an accuracy  10 percent over its normal 
operating range and be calibrated according to the manufacturer's 
instructions.
    (5) The Administrator may require you to demonstrate the accuracy 
of the monitoring device(s) relative to Methods 1 and 2 of Appendix A-1 
of part 60 of this chapter.
    (6) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters 
(fan motor amperes, flow rate, and/or damper positions) establishes the 
need to initiate corrective action as soon as practicable after the 
monitoring excursion in order to minimize excess emissions.
    (7) You must install, operate, and maintain a digital differential 
pressure monitoring system to continuously monitor each total enclosure 
as described in paragraphs (h)(7)(i) through (h)(7)(v) of this section.
    (i) You must install and maintain a minimum of one building digital 
differential pressure monitoring system at each of the following three 
walls in the shop building:
    (A) The leeward wall.
    (B) The windward wall.
    (C) An exterior wall that connects the leeward and windward wall at 
a location defined by the intersection of a perpendicular line between 
a point on the connecting wall and a point on its furthest opposite 
exterior wall, and intersecting within plus or minus ten meters of the 
midpoint of a straight line between the two other monitors specified. 
The midpoint monitor must not be located on the same wall as either of 
the other two monitors.
    (ii) The digital differential pressure monitoring systems must be 
certified by the manufacturer to be capable of measuring and displaying 
negative pressure in the range of 0.01 to 0.2 mm mercury (0.005 to 0.11 
inches of water) with a minimum accuracy of plus or minus 0.001 mm 
mercury (0.0005 inches of water).
    (iii) You must equip each digital differential pressure monitoring 
system with a continuous recorder.
    (iv) You must calibrate each digital differential pressure 
monitoring system in accordance with manufacturer's specifications at 
least once every 12 calendar months or more frequently if recommended 
by the manufacturer.
    (v) You must equip the digital differential pressure monitoring 
system with a backup, uninterruptible power supply to ensure continuous 
operation of the monitoring system during a power outage.
    (8) If you comply with the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1623(b)(3), you must install, operate and maintain a continuous 
monitoring system for the measurement of manganese concentrations in 
air as specified in paragraphs (h)(8)(i) through (h)(8)(v) of this 
section.
    (i) You must operate a minimum of two compliance monitors 
sufficient in location and frequency of sample collection to detect 
expected maximum concentrations of manganese in air due to emissions 
from the affected source(s) in accordance with a written plan as 
described in paragraph (h)(8)(ii) of this section and approved by the 
Administrator. The plan must include descriptions of the sampling and 
analytical methods used. At least one 24-hour sample must be collected 
from each monitor every 6 days. All records pertaining to the 
implementation and results of the compliance monitoring shall be kept 
on-site for a period of no less than 5 years from the date of 
generation of the record.
    (ii) You must submit a written plan describing and explaining the 
basis for the design and adequacy of the compliance monitoring network, 
the sampling, sample handling and custody, analytical procedures, 
quality assurance procedures, recordkeeping procedures and any other 
related procedures, and the justification for any seasonal, background, 
or other data adjustments within [45 DAYS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE].
    (iii) The Administrator at any time may require changes in, or 
expansion of, the monitoring program, including additional sampling 
and, more frequent sampling, revisions to the analytical protocols and 
network design.
    (iv) If all rolling 10-sample average concentrations of manganese 
in air measured by the compliance monitoring system are less than 50 
percent of the manganese concentration limits specified in Sec.  
63.1623(b)(3)(i) for 3 consecutive years, you may submit a proposed 
revised plan to reduce the monitoring sampling and analysis

[[Page 72553]]

frequency to the Administrator for review. If approved by the 
Administrator, you may adjust your monitoring accordingly.
    (v) For any subsequent period, if any rolling 10-sample average 
manganese concentration in air measured at any monitor in the 
monitoring system exceeds 50 percent of the concentration limits 
specified in Sec.  63.1623(b)(3), you must resume monitoring pursuant 
to paragraph (h)(8)(i)(A) of this section at all monitors until another 
3 consecutive years of manganese concentration measurements is 
demonstrated to be less than 50 percent of the manganese concentration 
limits specified in Sec.  63.1623(b)(3).
    (i) Furnace Capture System. You must perform monthly inspections of 
the equipment that is important to the performance of the furnace 
capture system, including capture of both primary and tapping 
emissions. This inspection must include an examination of the physical 
condition of the equipment (e.g., has hood location been changed or 
obstructed because of contact with cranes or ladles), to include 
detecting holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions in ductwork 
due to dents or accumulated dust, and operational status of flow rate 
controllers (pressure sensors, dampers, damper switches, etc.). Any 
deficiencies must be recorded and proper maintenance and repairs 
performed.
    (j) Requirements for sources using CMS. If you demonstrate 
compliance with any applicable emissions limit through use of a 
continuous monitoring system (CMS), where a CMS includes a continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as well as a continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring 
plan and submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at 
least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation (where 
applicable) of your CMS. Your site-specific monitoring plan must 
address the monitoring system design, data collection, and the quality 
assurance and quality control elements outlined in this section and in 
Sec.  63.8(d). You must install, operate, and maintain each CMS 
according to the procedures in your approved site-specific monitoring 
plan. Using the process described in Sec.  63.8(f)(4), you may request 
approval of monitoring system quality assurance and quality control 
procedures alternative to those specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through 
(j)(6) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (1) The performance criteria and design specifications for the 
monitoring system equipment, including the sample interface, detector 
signal analyzer and data acquisition and calculations;
    (2) Sampling interface location such that the monitoring system 
will provide representative measurements;
    (3) Equipment performance checks, system accuracy audits, or other 
audit procedures;
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1) and (c)(3); and
    (5) Conditions that define a continuous monitoring system that is 
out of control consistent with Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(i) and for responding 
to out of control periods consistent with Sec.  63.8(c)(7)(ii) and 
(c)(8) or Appendix A to this subpart, as applicable.
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with provisions in Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i) and Appendix A 
to this subpart, as applicable.
    (k) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CPMS, 
you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter 
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (k)(1) 
through (k)(7) of this section.
    (1) The continuous parameter monitoring system must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. 
You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have 
a valid hour of data.
    (2) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring 
system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as 
applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and span 
adjustments), you must operate the CMS at all times the affected source 
is operating. A monitoring system malfunction is any sudden, 
infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system 
to provide valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in 
part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. 
You are required to complete monitoring system repairs in response to 
monitoring system malfunctions and to return the monitoring system to 
operation as expeditiously as practicable.
    (3) You may not use data recorded during monitoring system 
malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, 
or required monitoring system quality assurance or control activities 
in calculations used to report emissions or operating levels. You must 
use all the data collected during all other required data collection 
periods in assessing the operation of the control device and associated 
control system.
    (4) Except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs 
associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required quality 
monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities 
(including, as applicable, system accuracy audits and required zero and 
span adjustments), failure to collect required data is a deviation of 
the monitoring requirements.
    (5) You must conduct other CPMS equipment performance checks, 
system accuracy audits, or other audit procedures specified in your 
site-specific monitoring plan at least once every 12 months.
    (6) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CPMS in 
accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
    (7) You must record the results of each inspection, calibration, 
and validation check.
    (l) CPMS for measuring gaseous flow.
    (1) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 5 percent 
of the flow rate or 10 cubic feet per minute, whichever is greater,
    (2) Check all mechanical connections for leakage at least every 
month, and
    (3) Perform a visual inspection at least every 3 months of all 
components of the flow CPMS for physical and operational integrity and 
all electrical connections for oxidation and galvanic corrosion if your 
flow CPMS is not equipped with a redundant flow sensor.
    (m) CPMS for measuring liquid flow.
    (1) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent 
of the flow rate and
    (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (n) CPMS for measuring pressure.
    (1) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion and
    (2) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of 
water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the 
pressure range.
    (3) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to 
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for 
pressure tap pluggage daily).
    (o) CPMS measuring flow of sorbent or carbon (e.g., weigh belt, 
weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device). Install and calibrate 
the device in accordance with manufacturer's procedures and 
specifications.
    (p) CPMS for measuring pH.
    (1) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.

[[Page 72554]]

    (2) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (q) Particulate Matter CEMS. If you are using a CEMS to measure 
particulate matter emissions to meet requirements of this subpart, you 
must install, certify, operate, and maintain the particulate matter 
CEMS as specified in paragraphs (q)(1) through (q)(4) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS 
according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13, and 
Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this 
chapter.
    (2) During each PM correlation testing run of the CEMS required by 
Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix B of this 
chapter, PM and oxygen (or carbon dioxide) collect data concurrently 
(or within a 30- to 60-minute period) by both the CEMS and by 
conducting performance tests using Method 5 or 5D at 40 CFR part 60, 
Appendix A-3 or Method 17 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-6 of this 
chapter.
    (3) Perform quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration 
drift tests in accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, Appendix 
F of this chapter. Relative Response Audits must be performed annually 
and Response Correlation Audits must be performed every 3 years.
    (4) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS relative 
accuracy test audit or performance test conducted to demonstrate 
compliance with this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy 
test audit data and performance test data to the EPA by successfully 
submitting the data electronically into the EPA's Central Data Exchange 
by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ert/).
    (r) Ore Sampling Requirements.
    (1) Following completion of the initial compliance demonstration 
where you established a weighted average mercury concentration of the 
manganese ore being used in the furnace during the emission test, you 
must determine the weighted average mercury concentration of the 
manganese ores used in the process on a monthly basis. If you introduce 
a new type of ore, you must analyze the sample according the methods 
specified in Sec.  63.1625(b)(10) and factor the results into your 
updated weighted average mercury concentration.
    (2) If the weighted average mercury concentration is more than 10 
percent higher than the weighted average operating limit, and you are 
operating an activated carbon injection system, you must reassess the 
activated carbon injection rate and revise the rate according to 
procedures established in your CMS monitoring plan.
    (3) If the weighted average mercury concentration is more than 10 
percent higher than the weighted average operating limit, and you are 
not operating an activated carbon injection system, you must retest the 
control device within 30 days to demonstrate compliance with the 
mercury emission limit and establish a new weighted average mercury 
concentration and associated activated carbon injection rate.
    10. Section 63.1627 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1627  What is an affirmative defense for exceedence of an 
emissions limit during malfunction?

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
paragraph Sec.  63.1623 you may assert an affirmative defense to a 
claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such standards that are 
caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. Appropriate penalties 
may be assessed, however, if the respondent fails to meet its burden of 
proving all of the requirements in the affirmative defense. The 
affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for injunctive 
relief.
    (a) Affirmative Defense. To establish the affirmative defense in 
any action to enforce such a limit, you must meet the notification 
requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a 
preponderance of evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner; and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent 
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification.
    (1) If you experience an exceedence of the facilities' emission 
limit(s) during a malfunction, you must notify the EPA Administrator by 
telephone or facsimile (Fax) transmission as soon as possible, but no 
later than two (2) business days after the initial occurrence of the 
malfunction, if you wish to avail yourself of an affirmative defense to 
civil penalties for that malfunction.
    (2) You must also submit a written report to the EPA Administrator, 
within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedence of the 
standard in Sec.  63.1623, to demonstrate, with all necessary 
supporting documentation, that you have met the requirements set forth 
in paragraph (a) of this section.
    (3) You may seek an extension of this deadline for up to 30 
additional days by submitting a written request to the Administrator 
before the expiration of the 45-day period. Until a request for an 
extension has been approved by the Administrator, you are subject to 
the requirement to submit such report within 45 days of the initial 
occurrence of the exceedances.
    11. Section 63.1628 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1628  What notification requirements must I meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of 
Sec.  63.9 of subpart A, General Provisions.

[[Page 72555]]

Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible.
    (b)(1) You must submit the process fugitives ventilation plan 
required under Sec.  63.1624(a), the outdoor fugitive dust control plan 
required under Sec.  63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for 
CMS required under Sec.  63.1626(j), the standard operating procedures 
manual for baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a) and the manganese 
monitoring alternative plan required under Sec.  63.1626(h)(8) to the 
Administrator or delegated authority along with a notification that you 
are seeking review and approval of these plans and procedures. You must 
submit this notification no later than [1 YEAR AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE]. For sources that commenced construction or reconstruction 
after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], you must submit this notification 
no later than 180 days before startup of the constructed or 
reconstructed ferromanganese or silicomanganese production facility. 
For an affected source that has received a construction permit from the 
Administrator or delegated authority on or before [EFFECTIVE DATE OF 
FINAL RULE], you must submit this notification no later than [1 YEAR 
AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE].
    (2) The plans and procedures documents submitted as required under 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section must be submitted to the Administrator 
in electronic format for review and approval of the initial submittal 
and whenever an update is made to the procedure.
    12. Section 63.1629 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1629  What recordkeeping and reporting requirements must I 
meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that 
are referenced in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) Records must be maintained in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). 
However, electronic recordkeeping and reporting is encouraged, and 
required for some records and reports.
    (2) Records must be kept on site for at least 2 years after the 
date of occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, 
report, or record, according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) You must maintain, for a period of 5 years, records of the 
information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(13) of this 
section.
    (1) Electronic records of the bag leak detection system output.
    (2) An identification of the date and time of all bag leak 
detection system alarms, the time that procedures to determine the 
cause of the alarm were initiated, the cause of the alarm, an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken, and the date and time the 
cause of the alarm was corrected.
    (3) All records of inspections and maintenance activities required 
under Sec.  63.1626(a) as part of the practices described in the 
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.1626(c).
    (4) Electronic records of the pressure drop and water flow rate 
values for wet scrubbers used to control particulate matter emissions 
as required in Sec.  63.1626(e), identification of periods when the 1-
hour average pressure drop and water flow rate values below the 
established minimum established and an explanation of the corrective 
actions taken.
    (5) Electronic records of the shop building capture system 
monitoring required under Sec.  63.1626(h)(1) through (h)(3), (h)(7) 
and (h)(8), as applicable, identification of periods when the capture 
system parameters were not maintained or the manganese concentration 
exceeded the rolling 10-sample concentration level as required under 
Sec.  63.1623(b)(3) and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Records of the results of monthly inspections of the furnace 
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(i).
    (7) Electronic records of the continuous flow monitors or pressure 
monitors required under Sec.  63.1626(j) and (k) and an identification 
of periods when the flow rate or pressure was not maintained as 
required in Sec.  63.1626(e).
    (8) Electronic records of the output of any CEMS installed to 
monitor particulate matter emissions meeting the requirements of Sec.  
63.1626(j).
    (9) Records of the total sorbent injection rate required under 
Sec.  63.1626(k).
    (10) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and/or 
shutdown.
    (11) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (12) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1623(g), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation.
    (13) Records that explain the periods when the procedures outlined 
in the process fugitives ventilation plan required under Sec.  
63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under Sec.  
63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under 
Sec.  63.1626(j), the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a) and the manganese monitoring 
alternative plan required under Sec.  63.1626(h)(8) were not followed 
and the corrective actions taken.
    (c) You must comply with all of the reporting requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.10 of the General Provisions that are referenced 
in Table 1 to this subpart.
    (1) You must submit reports no less frequently than specified under 
Sec.  63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions.
    (2) Once a source reports a violation of the standard or excess 
emissions, you must follow the reporting format required under Sec.  
63.10(e)(3) until a request to reduce reporting frequency is approved 
by the Administrator.
    (d) In addition to the information required under the applicable 
sections of Sec.  63.10, you must include in the reports required under 
paragraph (c) of this section the information specified in paragraphs 
(d)(1) through (d)(8) of this section.
    (1) Reports that explain the periods when the procedures outlined 
in the process fugitives ventilation plan required under Sec.  
63.1624(a), the fugitives dust control plan required under Sec.  
63.1624(b), the site-specific monitoring plan for CMS required under 
Sec.  63.1626(j), the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a) and the manganese monitoring 
alternative plan required under Sec.  63.1626(h)(8) were not followed 
and the corrective actions taken.
    (2) Reports that identify the periods when the average hourly 
pressure drop or flow rate of venturi scrubbers used to control 
particulate emissions dropped below the levels established in Sec.  
63.1626(e) and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (3) Bag leak detection system. Reports including the following 
information:
    (i) Records of all alarms.
    (ii) Description of the actions taken following each bag leak 
detection system alarm.
    (4) Reports of the shop building capture system monitoring required 
under Sec.  63.1626(h)(1) through (h)(3), (h)(7) and (h)(8), as 
applicable, identification of periods when the capture system 
parameters were not

[[Page 72556]]

maintained or the manganese concentration exceeded the rolling 10-
sample concentration level as required under Sec.  63.1623(b)(3) and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (5) Reports of the results of monthly inspections of the furnace 
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(g).
    (6) Reports of the CPMS required under Sec.  63.1626, an 
identification of periods when the monitored parameters were not 
maintained as required in Sec.  63.1626, and corrective actions taken.
    (7) If a malfunction occurred during the reporting period, the 
report must include the number, duration, and a brief description for 
each type of malfunction that occurred during the reporting period and 
caused or may have caused any applicable emissions limitation to be 
exceeded. The report must also include a description of actions taken 
by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1623(g), including 
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    (8) You must submit records pursuant to paragraphs (d)(8)(i) 
through (d)(8)(iii) of this section.
    (i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and as required in this subpart, you 
must submit performance test data, except opacity data, electronically 
to the EPA's Central Data Exchange by using the Electronic Reporting 
Tool (see http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ert/). Only data collected using 
test methods compatible with the Electronic Reporting Tool are subject 
to this requirement to be submitted electronically into the EPA's 
WebFIRE database.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test, as defined in Sec.  63.2 and required by 
this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data 
electronically into the EPA's Central Data Exchange by using the 
Electronic Reporting Tool as mentioned in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this 
section. Only data collected using test methods compatible with the 
Electronic Reporting Tool are subject to this requirement to be 
submitted electronically into the EPA's WebFIRE database.
    (iii) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the 
requirements in paragraph (d)(8)(i) and (d)(8)(ii) of this section must 
be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  
63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a 
report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by electronic 
media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator 
retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph 
(d)(9)(i) and (d)(9)(ii) of this section in paper format.
    13. Section 63.1630 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1630  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, 
or a delegated authority such as the applicable state, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a 
state, local, or tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the 
U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. 
Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this 
subpart is delegated to a state, local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a state, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are 
retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to 
the state, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to state, local, or 
tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of 
this section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.1620 
and 63.1621 and 63.1623 and 63.1624.
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec.  
63.8(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in this subpart.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec.  63.10(f), as defined in Sec.  63.90, and as required in 
this subpart.
    14. Section 63.1650 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (d);
    b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1); and
    c. Revising paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1650  Applicability and Compliance Dates.

* * * * *
    (d) Table 1 to this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this part that apply to owners and operators of ferroalloy 
production facilities subject to this subpart.
    (e) * * *
    (1) [Reserved]
    (2) Each owner or operator of a new or reconstructed affected 
source that commences construction or reconstruction after August 4, 
1998 and before November 23, 2011 must comply with the requirements of 
this subpart by May 20, 1999 or upon startup of operations, whichever 
is later.
    15. Section 63.1651 is amended by adding a definition for 
``Affirmative defense'' in alphabetic order to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1651  Definitions.

    Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement 
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding 
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which 
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or 
administrative proceeding.
* * * * *
    16. Section 63.1652 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1652  Emission standards.

* * * * *
    (f) At all times, you must operate and maintain any affected 
source, including associated air pollution control equipment and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of 
whether such operation and maintenance procedures are being used will 
be based on information available to the Administrator that may 
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation 
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance 
records, and inspection of the source.
    17. Section 63.1656 is amended by:
    a. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
    b. Revising paragraph (e)(1); and
    c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1656  Performance testing, test methods, and compliance 
demonstrations.

    (a) * * *
    (6) You must conduct the performance tests specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section under such conditions as the Administrator 
specifies based on representative performance of the affected source 
for the period being tested. Upon request, you must make available to 
the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the 
conditions of performance tests.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) Fugitive dust sources. Failure to have a fugitive dust control 
plan or failure to report deviations from the plan and take necessary 
corrective action would be a violation of the

[[Page 72557]]

general duty to ensure that fugitive dust sources are operated and 
maintained in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices for minimizing emissions per Sec.  63.1652(f).
    (2) * * *
    (ii) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    18. Section 63.1657 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(6);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(3); and
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1657  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (6) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under 
the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section would be a violation 
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.  
63.1652(f).
    (b) * * *
    (3) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under 
the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section would be a violation 
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.  
63.1652(f).
    (c) * * *
    (7) Failure to monitor or failure to take corrective action under 
the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section would be a violation 
of the general duty to operate in a manner consistent with good air 
pollution control practices that minimizes emissions per Sec.  
63.1652(f).
    19. Section 63.1659 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read 
as follows:
    (a) * * *
    (4) Reporting malfunctions. If a malfunction occurred during the 
reporting period, the report must include the number, duration, and a 
brief description for each type of malfunction which occurred during 
the reporting period and which caused or may have caused any applicable 
emission limitation to be exceeded. The report must also include a 
description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a 
malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance 
with Sec.  63.1652(f), including actions taken to correct a 
malfunction.
* * * * *
    20. Section 63.1660 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii); and
    b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (a)(2)(v) to 
read as follows:
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment;
    (ii) Records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1652(f), including 
corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution 
control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of 
operation;
* * * * *
    (iv) [Reserved]
    (v) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    21. Section 63.1662 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  63.1662  Affirmative defense for exceedance of emission limit 
during malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
Sec.  63.1652 through Sec.  63.1654 you may assert an affirmative 
defense to a claim for civil penalties for exceedances of such 
standards that are caused by malfunction, as defined at 40 CFR 63.2. 
Appropriate penalties may be assessed, however, if you fail to meet 
your burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative 
defense. The affirmative defense shall not be available for claims for 
injunctive relief.
    (a) To establish the affirmative defense in any action to enforce 
such a limit, you must timely meet the notification requirements in 
paragraph (b) of this section, and must prove by a preponderance of 
evidence that:
    (1) The excess emissions:
    (i) Were caused by a sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 
air pollution control and monitoring equipment, process equipment, or a 
process to operate in a normal or usual manner, and
    (ii) Could not have been prevented through careful planning, proper 
design or better operation and maintenance practices; and
    (iii) Did not stem from any activity or event that could have been 
foreseen and avoided, or planned for; and
    (iv) Were not part of a recurring pattern indicative of inadequate 
design, operation, or maintenance; and
    (2) Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the 
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift and 
overtime labor were used, to the extent practicable to make these 
repairs; and
    (3) The frequency, amount and duration of the excess emissions 
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable 
during periods of such emissions; and
    (4) If the excess emissions resulted from a bypass of control 
equipment or a process, then the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss 
of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and
    (5) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the 
excess emissions on ambient air quality, the environment and human 
health; and
    (6) All emissions monitoring and control systems were kept in 
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air 
pollution control practices; and
    (7) All of the actions in response to the excess emissions were 
documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
    (8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner 
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    (9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of 
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the 
malfunction and the excess emissions resulting from the malfunction 
event at issue. The analysis shall also specify, using best monitoring 
methods and engineering judgment, the amount of excess emissions that 
were the result of the malfunction.
    (b) Notification. The owner or operator of the affected source 
experiencing an exceedance of its emission limit(s) during a 
malfunction shall notify the Administrator by telephone or facsimile 
(FAX) transmission as soon as possible, but no later than two business 
days after the initial occurrence of the malfunction, if it wishes to 
avail itself of an affirmative defense to civil penalties for that 
malfunction. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative 
defense shall also submit a written report to the Administrator within 
45 days of the initial occurrence of the exceedance of the standard in 
Sec.  63.1652 through Sec.  63.1654 to demonstrate, with all necessary 
supporting documentation, that it has met the requirements set forth in 
paragraph (a) of this section. The owner or operator may seek an 
extension of this deadline for up to 30 additional days by submitting a 
written request to the Administrator before the expiration of the 45 
day period. Until a request for an extension has been approved by the 
Administrator, the owner or operator is subject to the requirement to 
submit such report within 45 days of the initial occurrence of the 
exceedance.
    22. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart XXX to read as follows:

[[Page 72558]]

 Table 1 to Subpart XXX of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                               Subpart XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               subpart XXX            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1..........................  Yes.               .....................
63.2..........................  Yes.               .....................
63.3..........................  Yes.               .....................
63.4..........................  Yes.               .....................
63.5..........................  Yes.               .....................
63.6(a), (b), (c).............  Yes.               .....................
63.6(d).......................  No                 Section reserved.
63.6(e)(1)(i).................  No                 See 63.1623(g) and
                                                    63.1652(f) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
63.6(e)(1)(ii)................  No.                .....................
63.6(e)(1)(iii)...............  Yes.               .....................
63.6(e)(2)....................  No                 Section reserved.
63.6(e)(3)....................  No.                .....................
63.6(f)(1)....................  No.                .....................
6.6(f)(2)-(f)(3)..............
63.6(g).......................  Yes.               .....................
63.6(h)(1)....................  No.                .....................
63.6(h)(2)-(h)(9).............  Yes.               .....................
63.6(i).......................  Yes.               .....................
63.6(j).......................  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)............  Yes.               .....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No                 See 63.1625(a)(5) and
                                                    63.1656(a)(6).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(e)(4)......  Yes.               .....................
63.7(f), (g), (h).............  Yes.               .....................
63.8(a)-(b)...................  Yes.               .....................
63.8(c)(1)(i).................  No                 See 63.1623(g) and
                                                    63.1652(f) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  Yes.               .....................
63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  No.                .....................
63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2).............  Yes.               .....................
63.8(d)(3)....................  Yes, except for    .....................
                                 last sentence.
63.8(e)-(g)...................  Yes.               .....................
63.9(a), (b), (c), (e), (g),    Yes.               .....................
 (h)(1) through (3), (h)(5)
 and (6), (i) and (j).
63.9(f).......................  Yes.               .....................
63.9(h)(4)....................  No                 Reserved.
63.10 (a).....................  Yes.               .....................
63.10 (b)(1)..................  Yes.               .....................
63.10(b)(2)(i)................  No.                .....................
63.10(b)(2)(ii)...............  No                 See 63.1629 and
                                                    63.1660 for
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    occurrence and
                                                    duration of
                                                    malfunctions and
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    actions taken during
                                                    malfunction.
63.10(b)(2)(iii)..............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(b)(2)(v).....  No.                .....................
63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(b)(2)(xiv)...  Yes.               .....................
63.(10)(b)(3).................  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(1)-(9)...............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(10)-(11).............  No                 See 63.1629 and
                                                    63.1630 for
                                                    recordkeeping of
                                                    malfunctions.
63.10(c)(12)-(c)(14)..........  Yes.               .....................
63.10(c)(15)..................  No.                .....................
63.10(d)(1)-(4)...............  Yes.               .....................
63.10(d)(5)...................  No                 See 63.1629(d)(8) and
                                                    63.1659(a)(4) for
                                                    reporting of
                                                    malfunctions.
63.10(e)-((f).................  Yes.               .....................
63.11.........................  No                 Flares will not be
                                                    used to comply with
                                                    the emission limits.
63.12 to 63.15................  Yes.               .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-29455 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P