Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0280
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Ferroalloys Production; National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Posted Date: 2015-06-30T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37365-37401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15038]

[[Page 37365]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 125

June 30, 2015

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

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

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 37366]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; FRL-9928-66-OAR]
RIN 2060-AQ11

National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review 
(RTR) conducted for the Ferroalloys Production source category 
regulated under national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants (NESHAP). These final amendments include revisions to 
particulate matter (PM) standards for electric arc furnaces, metal 
oxygen refining processes, and crushing and screening operations, and 
expand and revise the requirements to control process fugitive 
emissions from furnace operations, tapping, casting, and other 
processes. We are also finalizing opacity limits, as proposed in 2014. 
However, regarding opacity monitoring, in lieu of Method 9, we are 
requiring monitoring with the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT). 
Furthermore, we are finalizing emissions standards for four previously 
unregulated hazardous air pollutants (HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen 
chloride (HCl), mercury (Hg) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 
(PAH). Other requirements related to testing, monitoring, notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting are included. This rule is health 
protective due to the revised emissions limits for the stacks and the 
requirement of enhanced fugitive emissions controls that will achieve 
significant reductions of process fugitive emissions, especially 
manganese.

DATES: This final action is effective on June 30, 2015. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 30, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a 
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All 
documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, 
EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through Friday. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and 
the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action, 
contact Phil Mulrine, 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 number: (919) 541-5289; fax number: (919) 541-3207; and email 
address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. For specific information regarding the 
risk modeling methodology, contact 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 NESHAP to a particular 
entity, contact Cary Secrest, Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA WJC Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 
564-8661; and email address: secrest.cary@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Preamble Acronyms and Abbreviation

    We use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this 
list may not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and 
for reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and 
acronyms here:

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BLDS bag leak detection system
BTF Beyond-the-Floor
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
EJ environmental justice
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERPG Emergency Response Planning Guidelines
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
FeMn Ferromanganese
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutants
HCl hydrochloric acid
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
ICR Information Collection Request
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
mg/dscm milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
mg/m\3\ milligrams per cubic meter
MIR maximum individual risk
MOR metal oxygen refining
MRL Minimal Risk Level
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
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
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RfC reference concentration
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SBA Small Business Administration
SiMn Silicomanganese
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
[mu]g/dscm micrograms per dry standard cubic meter
[mu]g/m\3\ micrograms per cubic meter
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
UPL Upper Prediction Limit
VCS voluntary consensus standards

Background Information

    On November 23, 2011, and October 6, 2014, the EPA proposed 
revisions to the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP based on our RTR. In 
this action, we are finalizing decisions and revisions for the NESHAP. 
We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely received 
regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in this preamble. 
A summary of all other public comments on the proposal and the EPA's 
responses to those comments are available in document titled: National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys 
Production Summary of Public

[[Page 37367]]

Comments and the EPA's Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, 
November 23, 2011) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 
2014), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895, which is available in the 
docket. A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that 
incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the 
docket.
    Organization of this Document. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the Ferroalloys Production source category and how 
does the NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the Ferroalloys Production 
source category in our November 23, 2011, proposal and our October 
6, 2014, supplemental proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review 
for the Ferroalloys Production source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology 
review for the Ferroalloys Production source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) & (3) for the Ferroalloys Production source category?
    D. What are requirements during periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction?
    E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test 
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category
    B. Technology Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category
    C. CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3) Revisions for the Ferroalloys 
Production Source Category
    D. What changes did we make to the Ferroalloys Production 
opacity monitoring requirement?
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and 
Additional Analyses Conducted
    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 analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we 
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR 
part 51
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              NAICS \a\
                NESHAP and source category                      Code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroalloys Production....................................       331112
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but 
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be 
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To 
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the 
applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX (National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP): Ferroalloys 
Production). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
any aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed 
in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
preamble.

B. 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 final action will also be available on the Internet through the 
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. 
Following signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy 
of this final action at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/ferroa/ferropg.html. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA 
will post the Federal Register version and key technical documents at 
this same Web site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an 
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR 
source categories and detailed emissions and other data we used as 
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action 
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by August 31, 
2015. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this 
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal 
proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) further provides 
that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with 
reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including 
any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This 
section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule 
``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the 
Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within 
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection 
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time 
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central 
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such 
a demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the 
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC Building, 
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both 
the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

[[Page 37368]]

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process 
to address emissions of HAP from stationary sources. In the first 
stage, we must identify categories of sources emitting one or more of 
the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b) and then promulgate technology-
based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major sources'' are those that emit, 
or have the potential to emit, any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per 
year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. For 
major sources, these standards are commonly referred to as maximum 
achievable control technology (MACT) standards and must reflect the 
maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP achievable (after 
considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air quality health and 
environmental impacts). In developing MACT standards, CAA section 
112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the application of measures, 
processes, methods, systems, or techniques, including, but not limited 
to those that reduce the volume of or eliminate HAP emissions through 
process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications; 
enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions; collect, capture, 
or treat HAP when released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive 
emissions point; are design, equipment, work practice, or operational 
standards; or any combination of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum 
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor 
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See 
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less 
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. For existing sources the MACT standards can 
be less stringent than the floors for new sources, but they cannot be 
less stringent than the average emission 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, under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish 
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of 
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality 
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the 
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the 
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology 
review, we must review the 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, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk 
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after 
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards, 
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The 
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of 
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In 
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the 
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to 
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority 
for this rule, see 79 FR 60238.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed this approach of 
implementing CAA section 112(f)(2)(A); NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 
1083 (D.C. 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.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the Ferroalloys Production source category and how does the 
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    The EPA promulgated the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP on May 20, 
1999 (64 FR 27450). The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart XXX. The ferroalloys production industry consists of facilities 
that produce ferromanganese (FeMn) or silicomanganese (SiMn). The 
source category covered by this MACT standard currently includes two 
facilities.
    The rule applies to ferroalloys production operations that are 
located at major sources of HAP emissions or are co-located at a major 
source of HAP emissions. The HAP emission sources at facilities subject 
to the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP are open, semi-sealed, or sealed 
submerged arc furnaces, tapping operations, casting operations, metal 
oxygen refining (MOR) process, crushing and screening operations, other 
processes, such as ladle treatment and slag raking, and outdoor 
fugitive dust sources. The 1999 NESHAP regulated these emissions 
sources through emission limits for PM, opacity limits, and work 
practices.

C. What changes did we propose for the Ferroalloys Production source 
category in our November 23, 2011, proposal and our October 6, 2014, 
supplemental proposal?

    On November 23, 2011, the EPA published a proposed rule in the 
Federal Register (76 FR 72508) for the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP, 
40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX that took into consideration the RTR 
analyses. In the 2011 proposed rule, we proposed:
     Revisions to the numeric emission limits for PM from 
furnace stacks to reflect the current performance of control devices in 
place at ferroalloys production facilities to control furnace emissions 
(primary and tapping), crushing and screening operations, and the MOR 
operation at one plant;
     Addition of Hg, HCl, PAH, and formaldehyde furnace stack 
emission standards that reflected the MACT determination for control of 
these pollutants;
     Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using 
full building enclosure with negative pressure building ventilation and 
duct the captured emissions to a control device; and
     Revisions to the opacity standards to reflect effective 
capture and control of process fugitive emissions.
    On October 6, 2014, the EPA published a supplemental proposed rule 
in the Federal Register (79 FR 60238). For the supplemental proposal, 
we proposed:
     Revisions to the proposed PM furnace stack emission 
standards based on additional test data submitted by the facilities;
     Revisions to the proposed Hg, HCl, and PAH furnace stack 
emission standards based on additional test data submitted by the 
facilities;
     Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using 
effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to 
control devices;
     Revisions to the opacity standards to reflect effective, 
enhanced capture, and control of process fugitive emissions;
     To demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits, we 
proposed facilities would need to take opacity readings for an entire 
furnace cycle once per week per furnace using Method 9 or

[[Page 37369]]

as an option they could take the readings using DCOT; and
     Several minor clarifications and corrections.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR 
provisions of CAA section 112 for the Ferroalloys Production source 
category and amends the existing Ferroalloys Production NESHAP based on 
those determinations. Among the changes finalized in this action are: 
The promulgation of MACT-based limits for previously unregulated HAP; 
requirements to effectively capture and control process fugitive 
emissions; the removal of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) 
exemptions; and the addition of DCOT monitoring. This action also 
reflects several changes to the November 2011 and October 2014 
proposals in consideration of comments received during the public 
comment periods as described in section IV of this preamble.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?

    This section provides a summary of the final amendments to the 
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP being promulgated pursuant to CAA section 
112(f).
1. Stack Emissions
    We are promulgating PM emission limits for stacks at the following 
levels: 4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for new 
or reconstructed electric arc furnaces; 25 mg/dscm for existing 
electric arc furnaces; and 4.0 mg/dscm for any new, reconstructed, or 
existing local ventilation control device. These emission limits are 
the same as the limits proposed in the 2014 supplemental proposal.
    In addition, we are promulgating a PM limit of 3.9 mg/dscm for any 
new, reconstructed, or existing MOR process and a PM limit of 13 mg/
dscm for any new, reconstructed, or existing crushing and screening 
equipment, which are consistent with what we proposed in our November 
23, 2011, proposal.
2. Process Fugitive Emissions Sources
    We are promulgating a requirement that facilities in this source 
category must achieve effective enhanced capture of process fugitive 
emissions using a system of primary hoods (that capture process 
fugitive emissions near the source) and/or secondary capture of 
fugitives (which would capture remaining fugitive emissions near the 
roof-line). Facilities must install, operate, and maintain a process 
fugitives capture system that is designed to capture 95 percent or more 
of the process fugitive emissions. We are also promulgating an opacity 
limit of 8-percent to ensure process fugitive emissions are effectively 
captured. This is what we proposed in the October 6, 2014, supplemental 
proposal. However, we have revised the rule based on public comment, to 
provide more flexibility on how facilities achieve 95-percent capture 
of process fugitive emissions. We also strengthened the monitoring 
provisions to ensure that the required reductions are achieved.

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review 
for the Ferroalloys Production source category?

    We determined that there are developments in practices, processes, 
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the MACT standards 
for this source category for both stack PM emissions and process 
fugitive emissions. Therefore, under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(6), we are promulgating the same PM stack emission limits and 
enhanced fugitive control requirements that we are promulgating under 
CAA section 112(f), as described in section A above.

C. What are the final rule amendments pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) 
& (3) for the Ferroalloys Production source category?

    We are promulgating emission limits for formaldehyde, HCl, Hg, and 
PAH, which were previously unregulated HAP, pursuant to CAA section 
112(d)(2) and 112(d)(3).
    We are promulgating a formaldehyde emission limit of 201 micrograms 
per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm) for any new, reconstructed, 
or existing electric arc furnace. This is the same limit that we 
proposed on November 23, 2011.
    We are promulgating an HCl emission limit of 180 [mu]g/dscm for new 
or reconstructed electric arc furnaces and 1,100 [mu]g/dscm for 
existing electric arc furnaces. This is the same limit that we proposed 
on October 6, 2014.
    For electric arc furnaces producing FeMn, we are promulgating Hg 
emission limits of 13 [mu]g/dscm for new or reconstructed electric arc 
furnaces and 130 [mu]g/dscm for existing electric arc furnaces. For 
electric arc furnaces producing SiMn, we are promulgating Hg emission 
limits of 4 [mu]g/dscm for new or reconstructed electric arc furnaces 
and 12 [mu]g/dscm for existing electric arc furnaces. The Hg limit for 
new SiMn furnaces is the same as in the October 6, 2014, supplemental 
proposal. The final Hg limits for new and existing FeMn and existing 
SiMn furnaces are generally consistent with the supplemental proposal; 
however, there were changes to these three limits due to the inclusion 
of new emission data we received shortly before or during the 
supplemental proposal comment period.
    For electric arc furnaces producing FeMn, we are promulgating a PAH 
emission limit of 12,000 [mu]g/dscm for new or reconstructed and 
existing electric arc furnaces. The FeMn furnace PAH emission limits 
are significantly higher than what we proposed in the October 6, 2014, 
supplemental proposal due to the inclusion of new PAH emission data we 
received a few weeks before signature of the supplemental proposal and 
during the supplemental proposal comment period. We explained in the 
supplemental proposal preamble that we received data shortly before 
that notice and provided the data for comment (i.e., the data were 
available in the docket). The data received during the comment period 
were consistent with the data mentioned in the supplemental proposal. 
For electric arc furnaces producing SiMn, we are promulgating a PAH 
emission limit of 72 [mu]g/dscm for new or reconstructed electric arc 
furnaces and 130 [mu]g/dscm for existing electric arc furnaces. The 
SiMn furnace new PAH emission limit is the same as the limit in the 
October 6, 2014, supplemental proposal. There was a slight revision to 
the existing SiMn furnace PAH limit due to the inclusion of new 
emission data we received during the supplemental proposal comment 
period.

D. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and 
malfunction?

    We are finalizing, as proposed in the supplemental proposal, 
changes to the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to eliminate the SSM 
exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 
2008), the EPA is establishing standards in this rule that apply at all 
times. Table 1 to subpart XXX of part 63 (General Provisions 
applicability table) is being revised to change several references 
related to requirements that apply during periods of SSM. We also are 
eliminating or revising certain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption. The EPA also made 
changes to the rule to remove or modify inappropriate, unnecessary, or 
redundant language in the absence of the SSM exemption. We determined 
that facilities in this source category can meet the applicable 
emission standards

[[Page 37370]]

in the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP at all times, including periods of 
startup and shutdown; therefore, the EPA determined that no separate 
standards are needed to address emissions during these periods.

E. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    This rule also finalizes revisions to several other Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP requirements as proposed, or in some cases with some 
modification as described in this section.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and data 
accessibility, we are finalizing, as proposed, a requirement that 
owners and operators of ferroalloys production facilities submit 
electronic copies of certain required performance test reports through 
an electronic performance test report tool called the Electronic 
Reporting Tool (ERT). This requirement to submit performance test data 
electronically to the EPA does not require any additional performance 
testing and applies only to those performance tests conducted using 
test methods that are supported by the ERT.
    We are finalizing the opacity standards, as proposed in the 
supplemental proposal. However, regarding compliance demonstration, we 
are requiring that facilities measure opacity using DCOT. In the 
supplemental proposal, we proposed facilities would need to monitor 
opacity with Method 9 or DCOT. However, after considering public 
comments, we decided to require DCOT rather than have it as optional. 
Regarding monitoring frequency, we proposed facilities would need to do 
opacity readings weekly per furnace building with no opportunity to 
reduce frequency overtime. After considering public comments, we have 
decided to require weekly readings initially, as proposed, but allow a 
facility an opportunity to decrease frequency of opacity readings to 
monthly per furnace building after 26 weeks of successful, compliant 
opacity readings.
    In addition, due to the large variation in PAH emissions from 
furnace stacks during FeMn production, we are requiring quarterly 
compliance tests for PAHs (i.e., four PAH compliance tests per year) 
for furnaces while producing FeMn, with an opportunity for facilities 
to request decreased frequency of such compliance testing from their 
permit authority after the first year and after four or more successful 
PAH compliance tests have been completed and submitted electronically.
    We are also finalizing other minor changes to the NESHAP in 
response to comments received during the public comment period for the 
proposal and supplemental proposal, as described in this preamble.

F. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The revisions to the MACT standards being promulgated in this 
action are effective on June 30, 2015. The compliance date for existing 
ferroalloys production sources for all the requirements promulgated in 
this final rule is June 30, 2017. Facilities must comply with the 
changes set out in this final rule (which are being promulgated 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 the 
final rule. CAA section 112(f)(4) generally provides that a standard 
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) applies 90 days after the 
effective date, but further provides for a compliance period of up to 2 
years when the Administrator determines that such time is necessary for 
the installation of controls and that steps will be taken during that 
period to assure protection to health from imminent endangerment. We 
conclude that 2 years are necessary to complete the installation of the 
enhanced local capture system and other controls. In the period between 
the effective date of this rule and the compliance date, existing 
sources will need to continue to comply with the requirements specified 
in 40 CFR 63.1650 through 40 CFR 63.1660. New sources must comply with 
the all of the standards immediately upon the effective date of the 
standard, June 30, 2015, or upon startup, whichever is later.

G. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to 
the EPA?

    As we proposed, the EPA is taking a step to increase the ease and 
efficiency of data submittal and data accessibility. Specifically, the 
EPA is finalizing the requirement for owners and operators of 
ferroalloys production facilities to submit electronic copies of 
certain required performance test reports.
    Data will be collected by direct computer-to-computer electronic 
transfer using EPA-provided software. This EPA-provided software is an 
electronic performance test report tool called the ERT. The ERT will 
generate an electronic report package which will be submitted to the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) and then 
archived to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). A description and 
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/cdx).
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to 
the EPA does not create any additional performance testing and will 
apply only to those performance tests conducted using test methods that 
are supported by the ERT. A listing of the pollutants and test methods 
supported by the ERT is available at the ERT Web site. The EPA 
believes, through this approach, industry will save time in the 
performance test submittal process. Additionally, this rulemaking 
benefits industry by reducing recordkeeping costs as the performance 
test reports that are submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer 
required to be kept in hard copy.
    State, local, and tribal agencies will benefit from more 
streamlined and accurate review of performance test data that will 
become available through WebFIRE. The public will also benefit. Having 
these data publicly available enhances transparency and accountability. 
For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting of performance 
tests using direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer and using 
EPA-provided software, see the discussion in the preamble of the 
proposal.
    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 will save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the 
EPA significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of 
emission inventories and air quality regulations and enhancing the 
public's access to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category?

    For each issue, this section provides a description of what we 
proposed and what we are finalizing for the issue, the EPA's rationale 
for the final decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments 
and responses. For all comments not discussed in this preamble, comment 
summaries and the EPA's responses can be found in the comment summary 
and response document, which is available in the docket.

[[Page 37371]]

A. Residual Risk Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(f) for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we conducted a residual risk review 
and presented the results of this review, along with our proposed 
decisions regarding risk acceptability and ample margin of safety, in 
the October 6, 2014, supplemental proposal for the Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP (79 FR 60238). The results of the risk assessment for 
the 2014 supplemental proposal are presented briefly below in Table 2 
and in more detail in the residual risk document, Residual Risk 
Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source Category in Support of the 
September 2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.
    Based on actual emissions estimates for the Ferroalloys Production 
source category supplemental proposal, the maximum individual risk 
(MIR) for cancer was estimated to be up to 20-in-1 million driven by 
emissions of chromium compounds, PAHs, and nickel compounds. The 
maximum chronic non-cancer target organ-specific hazard index (TOSHI) 
value was estimated to be up to 4 driven by fugitive emissions of 
manganese. The maximum off-site acute hazard quotient (HQ) value was 
estimated to be 1 for arsenic compounds, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and 
formaldehyde. The total estimated national cancer incidence from this 
source category, based on actual emission levels, was 0.002 excess 
cancer cases per year, or one case in every 500 years.
    Based on MACT-allowable emissions estimated for the Ferroalloys 
Production source category supplemental proposal, the MIR was estimated 
to be up to 100-in-1 million driven by emissions of arsenic and cadmium 
compounds from the MOR process baghouse outlet. The maximum chronic 
non-cancer TOSHI value was estimated to be up to 40 driven by emissions 
of manganese from the MOR process. The total estimated national cancer 
incidence from this source category, based on MACT-allowable emission 
levels, was 0.005 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in every 
200 years.
    We also found there were emissions of four persistent and 
bioaccumulative HAP (PB-HAP) with an available RTR multipathway 
screening value, and the reported emissions of these four HAP (cadmium 
compounds, dioxins/furans, Hg compounds, and PAH) were greater than the 
Tier 1 multipathway screening values for these compounds for both 
facilities at the time of the supplemental proposal. We conducted a 
Tier 2 multipathway screen for both facilities, and conducted a refined 
multipathway assessment for one facility in the source category. 
Results of the refined multipathway assessment predict a potential 
lifetime cancer risk of 10-in-1 million to the maximum exposed 
individual due to exposure to dioxins and PAHs. The non-cancer HQ was 
predicted to be below 1 for cadmium compounds and 1 for Hg compounds.
    However, as explained in the Revised Development of the Risk and 
Technology Review (RTR) Emissions Dataset for the Ferroalloys 
Production Source Category for the 2014 Supplemental Proposal document, 
it is important to note that about 75 percent of the emissions test 
results for dioxins were below the detection limit. To be conservative, 
in our calculations of emissions estimates, we assumed all the test 
results that were recorded as below detection were one half the 
detection limit. Therefore, there are considerable uncertainties in 
estimated emissions for dioxins. Nevertheless, since we assumed 
emissions were at the level of one half the detection limit in all 
these cases where emissions were not even detected, we believe our 
emissions estimates are conservative (i.e., more likely to be 
overestimates rather than underestimates of the true emissions).
    Emissions of the four PB-HAP and two environmental HAP (HCl and HF) 
were reported by ferroalloys facilities. Tier 1 results for PB-HAP 
indicate that concentrations of cadmium compounds and dioxins are below 
the ecological benchmarks. Mercury compounds and PAHs concentrations 
were greater than the benchmark so a Tier 2 screen was conducted. For 
PAH and methylmercury, none of the individual modeled concentrations 
for any facility exceeded any of the ecological benchmarks. For 
mercuric chloride, the weighted average modeled concentrations for all 
soil parcels were well below the soil benchmarks. For HCl and HF, the 
average modeled concentrations around each facility did not exceed any 
ecological benchmarks.
    For the supplemental proposal, we weighed all health risk factors 
in our risk acceptability determination and we proposed that the 
residual risks from the Ferroalloys Production source category are 
unacceptable.

                            Table 2--Ferroalloys Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the October 2014 Supplemental Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million)                                                       Maximum chronic  non-
                     \a\                                                                              cancer TOSHI \b\
----------------------------------------------   Estimated population at      Estimated annual  ----------------------------
                                                 increased risk levels of     cancer incidence                     MACT-     Maximum screening acute non-
                              MACT- allowable             cancer              (cases per year)      Actual       allowable          cancer HQ \d\
  Actual  emissions  level        emissions                                                        emissions     emissions
                                 level \c\                                                           level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20..........................             100   >= 1-in-1 million: 31,000..               0.002             4            40   HQREL = 1 (arsenic
                                               >= 10-in-1 million: 400....                                                    compounds, formaldehyde,
                                               >= 100-in-1 million: 0.....                                                    hydrofluoric acid).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
\b\ Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Ferroalloys Production source category for both actual and allowable emissions is the
  neurological system. The estimated population at increased levels of noncancer hazard is 1,500 based on actual emissions and 11,000 based on allowable
  emissions.
\c\ The development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled Revised Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the
  Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the 2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket.
\d\ See section III.A.3 of the supplemental proposal or the risk assessment document supporting the supplemental proposal for explanation of acute dose-
  response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions.

    As described above, to address the unacceptable risks in the 
supplemental proposal, we proposed tighter PM emission limits for the 
stacks, which significantly reduce risks due to allowable emissions. To 
reduce risks

[[Page 37372]]

due to process fugitive emissions, we proposed facilities must achieve 
effective enhanced capture of process fugitive emissions using a system 
of primary hoods (that capture process fugitive emissions near the 
source) and/or secondary capture of fugitives (which would capture 
remaining fugitive emissions near the roof-line). As described in the 
supplemental proposal, we estimated that these controls would reduce 
the MIR cancer risk estimate to 10-in-1 million and that the chronic 
noncancer hazard index (HI) would be reduced to an HI of 1. Acute 
screening and multipathway results were also reduced. In the 
supplemental proposal, we concluded that these risks, after the 
implementation of proposed controls, were acceptable.
    We then considered whether the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 
provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether 
more stringent standards are necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, 
and other relevant factors. In considering whether the standards should 
be tightened to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public 
health, we considered the same risk factors that we considered for our 
acceptability determination and also considered the costs, 
technological feasibility, and other relevant factors related to 
emissions control options that might reduce risks associated with 
emissions from the source category. Based on our ample margin of safety 
analysis for the supplemental proposal, we did not identify any 
additional cost-effective controls to further reduce risks beyond the 
requirements we proposed to achieve acceptable risks. Therefore, we 
proposed that additional HAP emissions controls are not necessary to 
provide an ample margin of safety. Based on the results of our 
screening analysis for risks to the environment, we also proposed that 
more stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse 
environmental effect.
2. How did the risk review change for the Ferroalloys Production source 
category?
    Information received by the EPA shortly before and during the 
supplemental proposal comment period included additional PAH and Hg 
test data that were not included in the supplemental proposal risk 
assessment due to timing and the need to review the data. We described 
the data in the supplemental proposal and asked for comment on the use 
of these data. After completion of the data review, these data were 
included in the risk assessment for the final rule. Therefore, PAH and 
Hg emissions estimates were revised for the final rule assessment. Some 
revisions were also made for other HAP emissions. These changes are 
discussed further in section IV of this preamble.
    With the exception of the revised emissions described above, the 
risk assessment supporting the final rule was conducted in the same 
manner, using the same models and methods, as that conducted for the 
supplemental proposal. The documentation for the final rule risk 
assessment can be found in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment 
for the Ferroalloys Source Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and 
Technology Review Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this 
rulemaking.
    a. Inhalation Risk Assessment Results. Table 3 provides an overall 
summary of the results of the inhalation risk assessment supporting the 
final rule.

                                     Table 3--Ferroalloys Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the 2015 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum individual cancer risk (in 1 million)                                                    Maximum chronic non-cancer
                     \a\                                                                                  TOSHI \b\
----------------------------------------------   Estimated population at      Estimated annual  ----------------------------
                                                 increased risk levels of     cancer incidence                     MACT-     Maximum screening acute non-
                              MACT- allowable             cancer              (cases per year)      Actual       allowable          cancer HQ \d\
   Actual emissions level     emissions level                                                      emissions     emissions
                                    \c\                                                              level         level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20..........................             100   >= 1-in-1 million: 41,000..               0.003             4            40   HQREL = 1 (hydrofluoric
                                               >= 10-in-1 million: 90.....                                                    acid, arsenic compounds).
                                               >= 100-in-1 million: 0.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Estimated maximum individual excess lifetime cancer risk due to HAP emissions from the source category.
b Maximum TOSHI. The target organ with the highest TOSHI for the Ferroalloys Production source category for both actual and allowable emissions is the
  neurological system. The estimated population at increased levels of noncancer hazard is 1,300 based on actual emissions and 11,000 based on allowable
  emissions.
c The development of allowable emission estimates can be found in the memorandum titled Revised Development of the RTR Emissions Dataset for the
  Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the 2014 Supplemental Proposal, which is available in the docket.
d See section III.A.3 of the supplemental proposal or the risk assessment document supporting the supplemental proposal for explanation of acute dose-
  response values. Acute assessments are not performed on allowable emissions.

    The inhalation risk modeling performed to estimate risks based on 
actual and allowable emissions for the final rule relied primarily on 
updated emissions estimates based on data received through two 
Information Collection Requests (ICRs), additional data submitted by 
the companies voluntarily, and revised calculations as described 
further in the Revised Development of the Risk and Technology Review 
(RTR) Emissions Dataset for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category 
for the 2015 Final Rule, which is available in the docket for this 
action.
    The results of the chronic baseline inhalation cancer risk 
assessment indicate that, based on updated estimates of actual 
emissions, the cancer MIR posed by the Ferroalloys Production source 
category is 20-in-1 million, with chromium compounds, PAHs, and nickel 
compounds from tapping fugitives, furnace fugitives, and furnace stacks 
accounting for more than 70 percent of the MIR. The total estimated 
cancer incidence from ferroalloys production sources based on updated 
actual emission levels is 0.003 excess cancer cases per year, or one 
case every 333 years, with emissions of PAH, chromium compounds, and 
cadmium compounds contributing 49 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent, 
respectively, to this cancer incidence. In addition, we note that 
approximately 90 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than 
or equal to 10-in-1 million, and approximately 41,000 people are 
estimated to have risks greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million because 
of actual emissions from this source category. These results, based on 
updated actual

[[Page 37373]]

emissions, are very similar to those presented in the supplemental 
proposal.
    When considering the updated MACT-allowable emissions, the maximum 
individual lifetime cancer risk is estimated to be up to 100-in-1 
million, driven by emissions of arsenic and cadmium compounds from the 
MOR process baghouse outlet. The estimated cancer incidence is 
estimated to be 0.006 excess cancer cases per year or one excess case 
in every 167 years. Approximately 3,300 people are estimated to have 
cancer risks greater than or equal to 10-in-1 million and approximately 
120,000 people are estimated to have cancer risks greater than or equal 
to 1-in-1 million considering updated allowable emissions from 
ferroalloys facilities. These results, based on updated MACT-allowable 
emissions, are very similar to those presented in the supplemental 
proposal.
    The maximum modeled chronic non-cancer HI (TOSHI) value for the 
source category based on updated actual emissions is estimated to be 4, 
with manganese emissions from tapping fugitives accounting for more 
than 50 percent of the HI. Approximately 1,300 people are estimated to 
have exposure to HI levels greater than 1 as a result of updated actual 
emissions from this source category. When considering updated MACT-
allowable emissions, the maximum chronic non-cancer TOSHI is estimated 
to be 40, driven by manganese emissions from the MOR process baghouse 
outlet. Approximately 12,000 people are estimated to have potential 
exposure to TOSHI levels greater than 1 considering updated allowable 
emissions from these ferroalloys facilities. These results, for both 
updated actual and MACT-allowable emissions, are very similar to those 
presented in the supplemental proposal.
    b. Acute Risk Results. Based on the updated emissions described 
above, our screening analysis for worst-case acute impacts based on 
actual emissions indicates the potential for hydrofluoric acid and 
arsenic compounds to have HQ results of 1, based on their respective 
REL values. Both facilities have estimated acute HQs of 1 for these 
pollutants. Acute HQs for other pollutants (e.g., hydrochloric acid) 
are less than one. These acute results, based on updated emissions, are 
very similar to those presented in the supplemental proposal.
    All the HAP in this analysis have worst-case acute HQ values of 1 
or less, indicating that they carry no potential to pose acute 
concerns. In characterizing the potential for acute non-cancer 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 conservative estimates used 
to develop peak hourly emissions as described earlier, as well as the 
screening methodology. More discussion of our acute screening methods 
can be found in the supplemental proposal or in the risk assessment 
document, Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Production 
Source Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule, which are available 
in the docket.
    c. Multipathway Risk Screening Results. Results of the worst-case 
Tier I screening analysis indicate that PB-HAP emissions (based on 
updated estimates of actual emissions) from one or both facilities in 
this source category exceed the screening emission rates for cadmium 
compounds, Hg compounds, dioxins, and PAHs. For the compounds and 
facilities that did not screen out at Tier I, we conducted a Tier II 
screen.
    Based on the Tier II screening analysis, no facility emits cadmium 
compounds above the Tier II screening levels. One facility emits Hg 
compounds above the Tier II screening levels and exceeds that level by 
a factor of 8. Both facilities emit chlorinated dibenzodioxins and 
furans (CDDF) as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity 
equivalent (TEQ) above the Tier II screening levels and the facility 
with the highest emissions of dioxins exceeds its Tier II screening 
level by a factor of 10. Both facilities emit POM as benzo(a)pyrene TEQ 
above the Tier II screening levels and the facility with the highest 
emissions exceeds its screening level by a factor of 50. These 
multipathway screening results, based on updated emissions, are very 
similar to those presented in the supplemental proposal. More 
information about our multipathway screening approach can be found in 
the supplemental proposal or in the risk assessment document, Residual 
Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category in 
Support of the 2015 Final Rule, which are available in the docket.
    d. Multipathway Refined Risk Results. A refined multipathway 
analysis was conducted for one of the two facilities in this source 
category using the TRIM.FaTE model and the updated emissions as 
described above. The facility, Eramet Marietta Incorporated, in 
Marietta, Ohio, was selected based upon its close proximity to nearby 
lakes, and farms as well as having the highest potential multipathway 
risks for three of the four PB-HAP based on the Tier II analysis. In 
addition, it was selected for a refined multipathway assessment in the 
supplemental proposal. These three PB-HAP were cadmium, Hg, and PAHs. 
Even though neither facility exceeded the Tier II screening levels for 
cadmium, Eramet had the higher value. Eramet also emits dioxins, but 
the other facility had a higher exceedance of its Tier II screening 
level. The refined analysis was conducted on all four PB-HAP using 
updated emissions as described above. The refined analysis for this 
facility showed that the Tier II screen for each pollutant over-
predicted the potential risk when compared to the refined analysis 
results.
    Overall, the refined analysis predicts a potential lifetime cancer 
risk of 20-in-1 million to the maximum most exposed individual due to 
exposure to dioxins and PAHs. The non-cancer HQ is predicted to be 
below 1 for cadmium compounds and 1 for Hg compounds. These results, 
based on updated emissions, are very similar to those presented in the 
supplemental proposal.
    Further details on the refined multipathway analysis can be found 
in Appendix 10 of the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 
Production Source Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule, which is 
available in the docket.
    e. Environmental Risk Screening Results. As described in section 
III.A of the supplemental proposal preamble (79 FR 60238), we conducted 
an environmental risk screening assessment for the Ferroalloys 
Production source category. In the Tier I screening analysis for PB-HAP 
(other than lead, which was evaluated differently as noted in section 
III.A of the supplemental proposal preamble, 79 FR 60238), the 
individual modeled Tier I concentrations for one facility in the source 
category exceeded some sediment, fish-avian piscivorus, and surface 
soil benchmarks for PAHs, methylmercury, and mercuric chloride. 
Therefore, we conducted a Tier II assessment.
    In the Tier II screening analysis for PAHs and methylmercury, none 
of the individual modeled concentrations for any facility in the source 
category exceeded any of the ecological benchmarks (either the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect level or the no-observed-adverse-effect level). 
For mercuric chloride, soil benchmarks were exceeded for some 
individual modeled points that collectively accounted for 11 percent of 
the modeled area. However, the weighted average modeled concentration 
for all soil parcels was well below the soil benchmarks. For

[[Page 37374]]

lead, we did not estimate any exceedances of the secondary lead 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    For HCl, each individual concentration (i.e., each off-site data 
point in the modeling domain) was below the ecological benchmarks for 
all facilities. The average modeled HCl concentration around each 
facility (i.e., the average concentration of all off-site data points 
in the modeling domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmark. For 
HF, some individual modeled points exceeded the ecological benchmark 
but accounted for less than 0.02 percent of the modeled area. The 
average modeled HF concentration around each facility (i.e., the 
average concentration of all off-site data points in the modeling 
domain) did not exceed any ecological benchmarks. These results, based 
on updated emissions, are very similar to those presented in the 
supplemental proposal.
    f. Facility-Wide Risk Assessment Results. As in the supplemental 
proposal, for both facilities in this source category, there are no 
other HAP emissions sources present beyond those included in the source 
category. Therefore, we conclude that the facility-wide risk is the 
same as the source category risk and that no separate facility-wide 
analysis is necessary.
    g. Demographic Analysis Results. To examine the potential for any 
environmental justice (EJ) issues that might be associated with the 
source category, we updated the demographic analysis that was conducted 
for the supplemental proposal, using the risk results based on the 
updated emissions. A demographic analysis is an assessment of risks to 
individual demographic groups of the population close to the 
facilities. In this analysis, we evaluated the distribution of HAP-
related cancer risks and noncancer hazards from the Ferroalloys 
Production source category across different social, demographic, and 
economic groups within the populations living near facilities 
identified as having the highest risks. 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, which is available in 
the docket for this action.
    The results of the demographic analysis are summarized in Table 4 
below. These results, for various demographic groups, are based on the 
estimated risks from actual emissions levels for the population living 
within 50 kilometers (km) of the facilities.

              Table 4--Ferroalloys Production Demographic Risk Analysis Results for 2015 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Population with
                                                                            cancer risk at or   Population with
                                                                               above 1-in-1      chronic hazard
                                                             Nationwide       million due to   index above 1 due
                                                                               Ferroalloys       to Ferroalloys
                                                                                Production         Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population.......................................        312,861,265             40,748              1,348
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 72                 97                 99
All Other Races........................................                 28                  3                  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Race by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White..................................................                 72                 97                 99
African American.......................................                 13                  1                  0
Native American........................................                  1                  0                  0
Other and Multiracial..................................                 14                  2                  1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ethnicity by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hispanic...............................................                 17                  1                  1
Non-Hispanic...........................................                 83                 99                 99
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Income by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level....................................                 14                 15                  6
Above Poverty Level....................................                 86                 85                 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Education by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without High School Diploma................                 15                 11                 10
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma.................                 85                 89                 90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Age by Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ages 0 to 17...........................................                 24                 21                 22
Ages 18 to 64..........................................                 63                 61                 59
Ages 65 and up.........................................                 13                 18                 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The results of the Ferroalloys Production source category 
demographic analysis indicate that emissions from the source category 
expose approximately 41,000 people to a cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 
million and approximately 1,300 people to a chronic non-cancer TOSHI 
greater than 1 (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

[[Page 37375]]

(except for ages 65 and up) are similar to or lower than their 
respective nationwide percentages. These results are very similar to 
those presented in the supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the risk review, and what are 
our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the risk assessment for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category. The following is a summary 
of some of the more significant comments and our responses to those 
comments. Other comments received and our responses to those comments 
can be found in the document titled National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys Production Summary of 
Public Comments and the EPA's Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, 
November 23, 2011) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 
2014), which is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895).
    Comment: Several comments were received on the reference value used 
in the risk assessment to evaluate chronic noncancer effects due to 
exposure to manganese. In the 2011 proposal, we used the Integrated 
Risk Information System (IRIS) reference concentration (RfC), and we 
received negative comments regarding that value not being the ``best 
available science.'' We evaluated the available values and, in 
accordance with our prioritized dose-response values and Scientific 
Advisory Board (SAB) comments, we used the Agency for Toxic Substances 
and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimum risk level (MRL) for manganese in 
the risk assessment for the 2014 supplemental proposal. We received 
mixed comments in response to the supplemental proposal. Some comments 
were negative regarding our use of the ATSDR MRL, while others were 
generally supportive of our use of the MRL compared to the IRIS value, 
yet still thought the MRL was not the appropriate reference value to 
use in the assessment.
    Regarding use of the IRIS RfC for manganese in the 2011 proposal 
risk assessment, commenters stated that the manganese RfC was outdated, 
did not constitute the best available science (including use of 
benchmark dose statistical analyses or physiologically-based 
pharmacokinetic models), and substantial research has been conducted 
since the 1993 IRIS RfC was last updated. The commenters refer to their 
own calculations and studies and developed their own reference value 
for manganese and state that the EPA should use that value. Regarding 
use of the ATSDR MRL for manganese in the 2014 supplemental proposal 
risk assessment, the same commenters stated that the manganese MRL was 
an improvement over the IRIS RfC, but was still not the best available 
science because, in their review, ATSDR did not apply physiologically-
based pharmacokinetic models. The commenters again refer to their own 
calculations and studies developing a reference value for manganese and 
state that EPA should use that value. Another commenter disagrees with 
the use of the ATSDR MRL because the EPA has not provided sufficient 
rationale for using a less-protective value. Instead, this commenter 
recommended that we continue to use the IRIS RfC value.
    Response: We agree that there were newer information and 
assessments available at the time of the 2011 proposal and also for the 
2014 supplemental proposal, some of which may use the currently 
preferred approach for developing dose-response values (i.e., the 
benchmark dose approach). However, we only use reference values which 
meet certain criteria in regards to how they are derived (using EPA 
guidelines or similar), derived by credible sources with health-
protective goals similar to those of the EPA, using peer-review 
procedures also similar to the level applied to the EPA values, and 
with an open public comment process. We have a tiered priority list for 
sources of chronic dose-response information, which meet these criteria 
(as described in the supplemental proposal, 79 FR 60238). The tiered 
prioritized list has been through a SAB review and was favorably 
received.
    In the risk assessment for the 2011 proposal, we used the IRIS RfC 
for chronic exposure to manganese and received numerous comments 
regarding use of that value. In response to those comments, we 
considered the existing peer-reviewed health effect reference values 
for chronic inhalation exposure to manganese from other federal, state, 
and international agencies and organizations. We developed a reference 
value array document \2\ providing additional details for the available 
values. We noted that the ATSDR MRL value available for the 2011 
proposal was a draft value. The ATSDR MRL was subsequently finalized in 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. EPA. Mn and BTEX Reference Value Arrays (Final 
Reports). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/
600/R-12/047F, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our consideration of available reference values, we did not 
include some values specifically noted in public comments. The level of 
peer review for non-governmental scientific publications is 
qualitatively different than the governmental processes used to derive 
the values described in our tiered prioritized list, and some of the 
values in the manganese reference value array document. The information 
provided by these additional references from the commenter(s) may prove 
useful in an IRIS reassessment for manganese, and we agree that the 
physiologically-based models, along with all other relevant available 
peer-reviewed literature, will be considered in any IRIS reassessment 
of manganese. Yet, a direct application of any of these values instead 
of an established value in our tiered list of prioritized dose-response 
values would be inconsistent with the EPA policy as implemented in the 
RTR Program, and with recommendations from the SAB.
    After considering the values in our tiered list of prioritized 
dose-response values, and consistent with Agency policy supported by 
SAB, we decided to rely on the 2012 ATSDR MRL value for the 2014 
supplemental proposal. Both the 1993 IRIS RfC and the 2012 ATSDR MRL 
were based on the same study (Roels et al., 1993). In developing their 
assessment, ATSDR used updated dose-response modeling methodology 
(benchmark dose approach) and considered recent pharmacokinetic 
findings to support their selection of uncertainty values in the MRL 
derivation.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach and final decisions for 
the risk review?
    As noted in section II.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA sets standards 
under CAA section 112(f)(2) using ``a two-step standard-setting 
approach, with an analytical first step to determine an `acceptable 
risk' that considers all health information, including risk estimation 
uncertainty and includes a presumptive limit on maximum individual 
lifetime risk (MIR) of approximately 1 in 10 thousand.'' \3\ (54 FR 
38045, September 14, 1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 1-in-10 thousand is equivalent to 100-in-1 million. The EPA 
currently describes cancer risks as `n-in-1 million.'
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Acceptability Determination. As in the supplemental proposal, 
the EPA concludes that the risks are unacceptable for the following 
reasons. First, the EPA considered the fact that the noncancer hazard 
HQ ranges from 4 based on actual emissions to 40 based on allowable 
emissions. The EPA has not established under section 112 of the CAA a 
numerical range for risk

[[Page 37376]]

acceptability for noncancer effects as it has with carcinogens, nor has 
it determined that there is a bright line above which acceptability is 
denied. However, the Agency has established that, as exposure increases 
above a reference level (as indicated by a HQ or TOSHI greater than 1), 
confidence that the public will not experience adverse health effects 
decreases and the likelihood that an effect will occur increases. For 
the Ferroalloys Production source category, the potential for members 
of the public to be exposed to manganese at concentrations up to 40 
times the MRL reduces the Agency's confidence that the public is 
protected from adverse health effects and diminished the Agency's 
ability to determine that such exposures are acceptable. Second, the 
EPA considered the fact that the cancer risk estimate for actual 
emissions is 20-in-1 million and up to 100-in-1 million for allowable 
emissions. While 20-in-1 million is well within the acceptable range, 
risks from allowable emissions are at the upper end of the range of 
acceptability. This fact, combined with the fact that the noncancer 
hazard is up to 40 times the MRL and the refined multipathway HQ for Hg 
is at the RfD, leads the Agency to conclude that the risk from this 
source category is unacceptable.
    b. What is EPA requiring in the final rule to address the 
unacceptable risks? As mentioned above, to address the unacceptable 
risks, we are promulgating tighter PM emission limits for the stacks, 
which significantly reduces risks due to allowable emissions. 
Furthermore, to reduce risks due to process fugitive emissions, we are 
promulgating a requirement that facilities must achieve effective 
enhanced capture of process fugitive emissions using a system of 
primary hoods (that capture process fugitive emissions near the source) 
and/or secondary capture of fugitives (which would capture remaining 
fugitive emissions near the roof-line). Facilities must install, 
operate, and maintain a process fugitives capture system that is 
designed to capture and control 95 percent or more of the process 
fugitive emissions. We are also promulgating an opacity limit of 8 
percent to ensure process fugitive emissions are effectively captured 
and controlled. Facilities will need to meet an average opacity of 8 
percent for the entire furnace cycle (about 90-120 minutes) with a 
maximum opacity of no more than 20-percent opacity for any 12-minute 
period. Moreover, facilities will need to monitor various control 
parameters (such as fan speed, amperage, pressure drops, and/or damper 
positioning) to ensure the process fugitive capture systems and 
controls are working properly.
    c. Remaining Risks After Implementation of the Requirements to 
Address Unacceptable Risks. To determine the remaining risks after 
implementation of the lower stack PM emissions limits and requirements 
to effectively control process fugitives (described above), we 
conducted a post control risk assessment, which is described in detail 
in the document titled Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys 
Source Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule, which is available 
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Based on this post control risk assessment, we conclude that after 
the requirements described above to address unacceptable risks are 
implemented, the risks to public health will be substantially reduced.
    For example, the results of the post-control chronic inhalation 
cancer risk assessment indicate that the maximum individual lifetime 
cancer risk posed by these two facilities, after the implementation of 
the promulgated controls, will be no higher than 10-in-1 million, with 
an estimated reduction in cancer incidence to 0.002 cases per year. In 
addition, the number of people estimated to have a cancer risk greater 
than or equal to 1-in-1 million would be 26,000. The results of the 
post-control risk assessment also indicate that the maximum chronic 
noncancer inhalation TOSHI value would be reduced to 1. The number of 
people estimated to have a TOSHI greater than 1 would be reduced to 0. 
We also estimate that after the implementation of controls, the maximum 
worst-case acute HQ value would be less than 1 (based on REL values).
    Considering post-control emissions of multipathway HAP, Hg 
emissions would be reduced by approximately 3 pounds per year (lbs/yr), 
lead would be reduced by about 1,600 lbs/yr, polycyclic organic matter 
(POM) emissions would be reduced by approximately 3,600 lbs/yr, cadmium 
would be reduced by about 150 lbs/yr, and dioxins and furans would be 
reduced by about 0.002 lbs/yr from the baseline emission rates.
    d. Ample Margin of Safety Analysis. Under the ample margin of 
safety analysis, we again considered all of the health factors 
evaluated in the acceptability determination and evaluated 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.
    As described above, we estimate that the actions finalized under 
CAA section 112(f)(2) to address unacceptable risks will reduce the MIR 
to 10-in-1 million. The cancer incidence will be reduced to 0.002 cases 
per year and the number of people estimated to have cancer risks 
greater than 1-in-1 million will be reduced to 26,000 people. The 
chronic noncancer inhalation TOSHI will be reduced to 1 and the number 
of people exposed to a TOSHI level greater than 1 will be reduced to 0. 
In addition, the potential multipathway impacts will be reduced.
    Based on all of the above information, we conclude that the risks 
will be acceptable after implementation of the lower stack limits for 
PM and the control requirements to reduce process fugitive emissions, 
as we concluded in the supplemental proposal. Based on our research and 
analysis, we did not identify any cost-effective controls beyond those 
described above that would achieve further reduction in risk. While in 
theory, the 2011 proposed approach of total enclosure with negative 
pressure would provide some additional risk reduction, the additional 
risk reduction is minimal and, similar to our assessment and 
conclusions described in the supplemental proposal, we continue to 
believe the total enclosure approach would not be economically feasible 
and may not be technically feasible for these facilities. No other 
technology advances were identified during the comment period. 
Therefore, we are not promulgating any additional requirements under 
the ample margin of safety analysis beyond the requirements being 
finalized to address unacceptable risks (as described above). We 
conclude that the controls to achieve acceptable risks will also 
provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health.

B. Technology Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6) for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology 
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in 
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources 
in the Ferroalloys Production source category. For the 2011 proposal 
(76 FR 72508), we

[[Page 37377]]

identified developments in practices, processes or control technologies 
for PM emissions from stacks (as a surrogate for metal HAP) and for 
process fugitive metal HAP emissions. Based on the comments received 
from the public and information received through a 2012 ICR, we revised 
both the technology review and risk assessment for the Ferroalloys 
Production source category, which were described in detail in the 2014 
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238).
    a. PM Emission Limits From Stacks. For PM stack emissions limits, 
we determined for the 2011 proposal that the test data received from 
the two facilities indicate that all five furnaces that are in 
operation have PM emission levels that are well below their respective 
emission limits in the 1999 MACT rule, which were based on size and 
product being produced. The test data received from the facilities also 
indicate that the PM emission levels for MOR and crushing and sizing 
are well below their respective emission limits in the 1999 MACT rule. 
These findings demonstrate that add-on particulate control technologies 
(Venturi scrubber, positive pressure fabric filter, negative pressure 
fabric filter) used to control emissions from the sources are effective 
in reducing PM (used as a surrogate for metal HAP). Based on these 
findings, in 2011 we proposed a PM limit of 24 mg/dscm corrected to 2 
percent carbon dioxide (CO2) for existing furnaces.
    We received additional test data after the 2011 proposal and re-
evaluated the PM limit using available PM emissions test data and 
consideration of variability across these data. Based on this analysis, 
we determined that it was appropriate to propose a revised PM limit of 
25 mg/dscm for existing furnaces. No additional add-on control is 
expected to be required by the facilities to meet this revised existing 
source limit. To demonstrate compliance, we proposed these sources 
would be required to conduct periodic performance testing and develop 
and operate according to a baghouse operating plan or continuously 
monitor Venturi scrubber operating parameters. We also proposed that 
furnace baghouses would be required to be equipped with bag leak 
detection systems (BLDS).
    For the 2011 proposal, the proposed new source PM standard was 
determined by evaluating the available data from the best performing 
furnace (which was determined to be furnace #2 at Felman). The proposed 
new source limit was determined to be 9.3 mg/dscm. We received 
additional test data after the 2011 proposal and re-evaluated the new 
source limit using the available test data. The revised new source PM 
standard for furnaces for the 2014 supplemental proposal was determined 
by evaluating the available data from the best performing furnace 
(which was again determined to be furnace #2 at Felman). The new source 
MACT limit was determined to be 4.0 mg/dscm based on data from furnace 
#2 and was proposed as the MACT emissions limit for PM from new and 
reconstructed source furnace stacks in the 2014 supplemental proposal.
    The PM emission limit for the local ventilation control device 
outlet was also re-evaluated using compliance test data and test data 
from the 2012 ICR. A local ventilation control system is used to 
capture tapping, casting, or ladle treatment emissions and direct them 
to a control device other than one associated with the furnace. The 
2011 proposal included a proposed PM limit for the local ventilation 
control device that was based on PM data from the furnaces. After the 
2011 proposal, we received test data from three different emissions 
tests (for a total of nine test runs) specifically for this local 
ventilation source. We determined these data were more appropriate for 
the development of a limit for this source than the furnace data we had 
used for the 2011 proposal. There is currently only one local 
ventilation control device outlet emissions source in this source 
category. Using the new data for the one existing local ventilation 
source, we calculated a revised emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm and 
determined that this was an appropriate emissions limit for this 
source. Therefore, we proposed an emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm for 
existing, new, and reconstructed local ventilation control device 
emissions sources in the supplemental proposal.
    For crushing and screening operations, we proposed an emission 
limit of 13 mg/dscm for new and existing crushing and sizing operations 
in the 2011 proposal. We did not receive any additional data for this 
emission source and, therefore, made no revisions to this proposed 
limit in the 2014 supplemental proposal.
    The MOR operation is a unique process that is operated by only one 
facility (Eramet). We calculated a proposed emission limit of 3.9 mg/
dscm in the 2011 proposal that would apply to both new and existing MOR 
operation sources. We did not receive any additional data for this 
emission source and, therefore, made no revisions to this proposed 
limit in the 2014 supplemental proposal.
    b. Emission Standards for Process Fugitives. For process fugitive 
metal HAP emissions, we identified two potential developments in 
practices and control techniques. One option would require facilities 
to install and operate enhanced capture of process fugitive emissions 
using a combination of primary hoods and ductwork in close proximity to 
the emission sources, such as tapping or casting and/or secondary hoods 
located near the roofline. Another option would be to require full 
enclosure of the furnace building(s) with negative pressure and 
evacuate the process fugitive emissions to a control device(s). In the 
2011 proposal, we proposed that the full furnace building enclosure 
option represented an advance in emission control measures since the 
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP was originally promulgated in 1999.
    For day-to-day continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with 
the proposed full building enclosure requirements, the 2011 proposal 
relied mainly on requiring monitoring differential pressure to ensure 
facilities maintained a negative pressure of at least 0.007 inches of 
water and that emissions within the facilities would need to be vented 
to PM control devices. This was to be supplemented by operation and 
work practice standards that required preparation of a process fugitive 
emissions ventilation plan for each shop building. In the 2011 
proposal, we also proposed a requirement that emissions exiting from a 
shop building may not exceed more than 10-percent opacity for more than 
one 6-minute period, to be demonstrated every 5 years as part of the 
periodic required performance tests.
    We received significant comments in response to the 2011 proposal. 
Commenters claimed that we had significantly underestimated the costs 
for full building enclosure and that it would not be feasible for these 
facilities. After reviewing and considering the comments along with 
other information, we decided to re-evaluate the proposed requirement 
for negative pressure ventilation and consider other options.
    Based on our re-evaluation, for the 2014 supplemental proposal, we 
concluded that the full-building enclosure option may not be feasible 
and would have significant economic impacts on the facilities. However, 
we concluded that an option based on enhanced local capture and control 
of process fugitive emissions using a combination of primary and 
secondary hoods is a feasible and cost-effective approach to achieve 
significant reductions in process fugitive HAP emissions. Therefore, in 
the 2014 supplemental proposal, we proposed

[[Page 37378]]

that facilities would need to install and operate a local capture 
system using a combination of primary and/or secondary hoods that is 
designed to achieve at least 95-percent capture and control of process 
fugitive emissions.
    With the move to the proposed enhanced local capture alternative in 
the 2014 supplemental proposal, we no longer had a day-to-day 
continuous requirement of monitoring negative pressure. Instead, in the 
2014 supplemental proposal, continuous compliance demonstration would 
be based mainly on meeting an opacity limit, monitoring ventilation 
parameters (such as fan speed, amperage, and/or damper positioning), 
and documenting the design of the system to achieve 95-percent capture. 
Since opacity monitoring would be a primary method to demonstrate 
continuous compliance, we proposed that facilities would need to meet 
an average opacity of 8 percent for an entire furnace cycle (about 90-
120 minutes) with a maximum opacity of no more than 20 percent opacity 
for any 12-minute period. Furthermore, we proposed facilities would 
need to monitor opacity for a full furnace cycle (about 90-120 minutes) 
at least once per week per furnace building. We also proposed that, if 
the average opacity reading from the shop building is greater than 8-
percent opacity during an observed furnace process cycle, an additional 
two more furnace process cycles must be observed such that the average 
opacity during the entire observation period is less than 7-percent 
opacity. A furnace process cycle means the period in which the furnace 
is tapped to the time in which the furnace is tapped again and includes 
periods of charging, smelting, tapping, casting, and ladle raking.
    Regarding the design requirements, in the supplemental proposal, we 
proposed that the facilities in this source category must install, 
operate, and maintain a process fugitives capture system that is 
designed to collect 95 percent or more of the process fugitive 
emissions from furnace operations, casting MOR process, ladle raking, 
and slag skimming and crushing and screening operations and convey the 
collected emissions to a control device that meets specified emission 
limits and the proposed opacity limits. We proposed that this plan be 
submitted to the permitting authority, incorporated into the source's 
operating permit and updated every 5 years or when there is a 
significant change in variables that affect process fugitive emissions 
ventilation design. We proposed that this list of design criteria, 
coupled with the requirement for frequent opacity observations and 
operating parameter monitoring, would ensure process fugitive emissions 
are effectively controlled and would result in enforceable 
requirements.
    More information concerning our proposed technology review can be 
found in the memoranda titled, Revised Technology Review for the 
Ferroalloys Production Source Category, and Cost Impacts of Control 
Options Considered for the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP to Address 
Fugitive HAP Emissions, which are available in the docket, and in the 
preamble to the 2014 supplemental proposed rule, 79 FR at 60271 to 
60273.
2. How did the technology review change for the Ferroalloys Production 
source category?
    For the October 6, 2014, supplemental proposal, we solicited 
comment regarding the use of new technologies to provide continuous or 
near continuous long term approaches to monitoring emissions from 
industrial sources for the Ferroalloy Production source category. After 
considering comments received and after evaluating the technologies 
further, we are replacing the weekly Method 9 opacity requirement with 
a weekly requirement to measure opacity using ASTM D7520-13 and DCOT to 
demonstrate compliance with the process fugitives standards. The final 
rule amendments require facilities to use the DCOT to measure opacity 
at least once per week for each of the furnace and MOR buildings to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity limits. However, as mentioned 
above, facilities will have the opportunity to reduce the frequency of 
opacity readings to monthly after 26 consecutive weeks of compliant 
weekly readings. The facilities would still be required to meet an 
average opacity standard of 8-percent opacity for the furnace cycle 
(90-120 minutes) and at no time during operation may any two 
consecutive 6-minute block opacity readings be greater than 20-percent 
opacity. The cost of implementing the DCOT system is estimated to be 
approximately $200,000 per year for the source category with weekly 
readings. However, these costs decrease to about $90,000 per year for 
the source category if they do monthly readings per furnace building. 
All other requirements we proposed under CAA section 112(d)(6) in the 
supplemental proposal have not changed.
3. What key comments did we receive on the technology review, and what 
are our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the technology review for 
the Ferroalloys Production source category. The following is a summary 
of the more significant comments and our responses to those comments. 
Other comments received and our responses to those comments can be 
found in the document titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous 
Air Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys Production Summary of Public 
Comments and the EPA's Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, 
November 23, 2011) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 
2014), which is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895).
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's decision to re-evaluate 
the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the controls that the Agency 
proposed in its 2011 proposal. However, the commenter objects to the 
EPA's conclusion that an alternative system involving both primary and 
secondary capture is available and represents an ``advancement in 
technology'' pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). The commenter states 
that this type of system does not currently exist in practice at any 
ferroalloy operation. They explain that, in theory, such a system 
appears likely to provide some degree of additional reductions. 
However, the commenter notes some of the specific potential control 
methods mentioned by the EPA have already been proven not to work. As 
an example, the commenter states that curtains have previously been 
installed in an attempt to contain additional furnace emissions, but 
the curtains burned up due to the extreme heat in only a few weeks. The 
commenter, therefore, objects both to the characterization of these 
additional controls as a currently available ``advancement in 
technology,'' and to the EPA's conclusion that the cost of almost 
$100,000 per ton of HAP reductions for these additional controls is 
cost effective.
    Response: In their supplemental comments on the 2011 proposed rule, 
industry representatives provided suggested alternative designs to 
address fugitive emissions from the furnace buildings. The designs 
suggested by the industry representatives included improving the 
existing primary hooding and capture systems close to the emissions 
sources and/or adding secondary capture to ensure effective capture and 
control of process fugitive

[[Page 37379]]

emissions. The use of a primary hooding and exhaust system in 
conjunction with general secondary hooding and exhaust system was 
estimated to provide a total capture of 95 percent of process fugitive 
emissions, including emissions from the tapping, casting, crushing/
screening, and skimming/slag raking processes.
    We reviewed these designs and discussed the designs with 
ventilation experts. The ventilation experts agreed that the suggested 
primary system along with secondary capture could achieve 95 percent 
reduction of process fugitive emissions from the buildings. They noted 
that many of the designs and improvements were based on the elements of 
good ventilation systems that are used in other industries to capture 
and control fugitive emissions. Because these designs have been only 
partially deployed in this industry, they constitute a relevant 
development in technology beyond what is required by the current rule. 
We view the successful deployment of these technologies in other 
industries and the expert judgement of industrial ventilation experts 
as establishing that the technologies are technically available for 
transfer to the Ferroalloy Production source category.
    As part of our technology review, we evaluated the costs and 
effectiveness of a regulatory option that is based on the general 
emission control scenario suggested by the industry representatives 
which would include a system of primary and/or secondary hooding 
designed to capture 95 percent of process fugitive emissions. The 
process fugitive emissions would be captured by the primary and/or 
secondary hoods and routed to PM control devices. This option for the 
control of process fugitive emissions under CAA section 112(d)(6) is 
exactly the same option that we are promulgating under CAA section 
112(f)(2) to capture and control fugitives (described in section IV.A 
of this preamble). We estimate that the total capital cost including 
monitoring would be about $40.3 million, the total annualized costs 
would be about $7.7 million per year, and that it would achieve 77 tpy 
reduction of HAP, mostly manganese and other HAP metals (e.g., cadmium 
compounds, chromium compounds, nickel compounds) and also achieve about 
229 tpy reduction of PM. Based on our evaluation, we conclude that 
installing and operating such a system is a feasible and cost-effective 
approach to achieve significant reductions in process fugitive HAP 
emissions and will achieve almost as much reductions as the full 
building enclosure option (229 vs. 252 tons PM reductions). In light of 
the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of this enhanced 
fugitive capture option (that includes a combination of primary capture 
and/or secondary capture designed to capture and control 95 percent of 
process fugitive), we are promulgating this option under the authority 
of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. The control requirements and 
compliance requirements under this CAA section 112(d)(6) option are the 
exact same requirements we are promulgating under CAA section 112(f)(2) 
to address unacceptable risks for process fugitive emissions (described 
in section IV.A of this preamble). As described in that section, 
facilities must install, operate, and maintain a process fugitives 
capture system that is designed to capture 95 percent or more of the 
process fugitive emissions. Facilities will also need to meet an 
average opacity of 8 percent for each furnace cycle (about 90-120 
minutes) with a maximum opacity of no more than 20 percent opacity for 
any two consecutive 6-minute block opacity readings (12-minute period). 
To demonstrate compliance, facilities will need to initially monitor 
opacity for a full furnace cycle (about 90-120 minutes) at least once 
per week per furnace building using the DCOT. Moreover, facilities will 
need to monitor various control parameters (such as fan speed, 
amperage, pressure drops, and/or damper positioning) to ensure the 
fugitive capture system and controls are working properly.
    Comment: One commenter states that the only notable development 
that occurred in ferroalloys emission practices, processes, and control 
technologies since the 1999 NESHAP took effect is the installation of 
scrubbers and baghouses. Since scrubbers and baghouses have 
demonstrably different performance in controlling particulate 
emissions, the commenter claims that developments since 1999 warrant 
separate particulate emission limits based on the type of control 
device involved. The commenter states that the EPA did not acknowledge 
this development and proposed a single stack particulate limit for all 
furnaces. The commenter provided proposed PM limits of 27 mg/dscm for 
wet particulate scrubbers and 6.2 mg/dscm for baghouses, and notes that 
these limits would actually reduce the total allowable particulate 
emissions from their facility in comparison to the EPA's proposed 
single limit of 25 mg/dscm.
    Response: Section 112 of the CAA grants the EPA discretion to 
establish ``categories and subcategories'' of sources to be regulated 
under CAA section 112, and further allows the EPA to ``distinguish 
among classes, types and sizes of sources within a category or 
subcategory'' when establishing MACT standards. However, we believe it 
is not appropriate to establish subcategories based on type of control 
technology used by these emission sources.
    In the case of the PM emissions from the ferroalloy furnaces, we 
believe if it was appropriate, we could subcategorize based on the size 
of the furnace or the product being produced in that furnace. However, 
we determined that there was no statistical difference in PM emissions 
based on the size of the individual furnaces or by the product being 
produced in those furnaces. Therefore, we decided it was not 
appropriate to subcategorize for PM emissions and instead established a 
single PM limit for all of the furnaces, regardless of size or product 
being produced.
    Comment: One commenter believes that the EPA's proposed 
requirements to reduce process fugitive emissions under CAA section 
112(d)(6) are not based on control practices in use in the ferroalloys 
industry, but rather simply reflect a decision by the EPA that the 
sources at Eramet and Felman should be subject to additional 
requirements. By putting the enhanced fugitive control requirements 
under CAA section 112(d)(6), the commenter believes that the EPA 
dispenses with any attempt to justify the requirements as cost 
effective, as would be required to impose for ``beyond the MACT floor'' 
standards under CAA section 112(d)(2), and the EPA dispenses with any 
attempt to present a risk-based justification for the requirements, as 
would be required under CAA section 112(f)(2).
    Response: As an initial matter, we note the process fugitive 
control requirements are justified as risk-based requirements under CAA 
section 112(f)(2). See section IV.A of this preamble. Therefore, the 
premise of this comment is factually incorrect. That said, the 
requirements of this rule also are justified under CAA section 
112(d)(6). Under CAA section 112(d)(6), we are required to review 
emission standards no less frequently than every 8 years and revise 
them ``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, 
processes, and control technologies).'' The ferroalloys industry 
already includes some of the controls envisioned under this control 
scenario. For example, all 5 furnaces in the source category in the 
U.S. already have some type of primary hooding to capture some process 
fugitive emissions from tapping and/or casting operations. In fact, one 
of the five furnaces in the U.S. already achieves good capture of

[[Page 37380]]

tapping emissions with their current configuration. Furthermore, 
effective primary and secondary capture systems are currently used in 
other metals industries (e.g., steel production, secondary lead 
production) to effectively capture and control process fugitives.
    Moreover, as described above, representatives from the ferroalloys 
companies have provided suggestions as to how such a system could be 
designed, installed and operated to achieve 95-percent capture of 
fugitives. Therefore, we conclude such a system is technically 
feasible. Furthermore, as we described above, we conclude these 
controls would be cost effective ($91,000 per ton of HAP metal 
reduced). Therefore, we conclude it is appropriate to promulgate this 
control option under section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the technology 
review?
    a. PM Emissions Limits from Stacks. The available test data from 
the five furnaces located at the two facilities indicate that all of 
these furnaces have PM emission levels that are well below their 
respective emission limits in the 1999 MACT rule. These findings 
demonstrate that the add-on emission control technologies (Venturi 
scrubber, positive pressure fabric filter, negative pressure fabric 
filter) used to control emissions from the furnaces are effective in 
reducing particulate matter (used as a surrogate for metal HAP).
    The PM emissions, used as a surrogate for metal HAP, that were 
reported by the industry in response to the 2010 ICR, were far below 
the level specified in the current NESHAP, indicating improvements in 
the control of PM emissions since promulgation of the current NESHAP. 
We re-evaluated the data received in 2010, along with additional data 
received in 2012 and 2013, to determine whether it is appropriate to 
promulgate revised emissions limits for PM from the furnace process 
vents. More details regarding the available PM data and this re-
evaluation are provided in the Revised Technology Review for the 
Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the Supplemental Proposal, 
which is available in the docket. Unlike PAH and Hg stack data, we did 
not see significant differences in emissions based on product produced 
(e.g., FeMn or SiMn). Therefore, we are not promulgating separate PM 
stack limits based on product type.
    Based on this analysis, we determined it is appropriate to finalize 
the revised existing source furnace stack PM emissions limit of 25 mg/
dscm, which is the same limit we proposed in the supplemental proposal. 
No additional add-on controls are expected to be required by the 
facilities to meet the revised existing source limit of 25 mg/dscm. 
However, this revised limit will result in significantly lower 
``allowable'' PM emissions from the source category compared to the 
level of emissions allowed by the 1999 MACT rule and would help prevent 
any emissions increases. To demonstrate compliance, these sources will 
be required to conduct periodic performance testing and develop and 
operate according to a baghouse operating plan or continuously monitor 
Venturi scrubber operating parameters. Also furnace baghouses will be 
required to be equipped with BLDS.
    The final PM standard for new and reconstructed furnaces is 4.0 mg/
dscm and was determined by evaluating the available data from the best 
performing furnace (which was determined to be furnace #2 at Felman).
    As described above, the PM emission limit for the local ventilation 
control device outlet was re-evaluated for the supplemental proposal 
using compliance test data and test data from the 2012 ICR. We did not 
receive any additional data since the supplemental proposal for this 
source. Using all the available data for the one existing local 
ventilation source, we calculated an emissions limit of 4.0 mg/dscm, 
which is the exact same limit we proposed in the supplemental proposal. 
We conclude that this is still an appropriate emissions limit for this 
source. Therefore, we are promulgating this emissions limit of 4.0 mg/
dscm for existing, new, and reconstructed local ventilation control 
device emissions sources. In addition, we are promulgating a PM limit 
of 3.9 mg/dscm for any new, reconstructed, or existing MOR process, and 
a PM limit of 13 mg/dscm for any new, reconstructed, or existing 
crushing and screening equipment, which are consistent with what we 
proposed in our November 23, 2011, proposal.
    Furthermore, as mentioned in section III of this preamble, we are 
promulgating a PM limit of 3.9 mg/dscm for any new, reconstructed, or 
existing MOR process, and a PM limit of 13 mg/dscm for any new, 
reconstructed, or existing crushing and screening equipment.
2. Standards for Process Fugitive Metal HAP Emissions
    In the 2011 proposal, we proposed a requirement for sources to 
enclose the furnace building, collect fugitive emissions such that the 
furnace building is maintained under negative pressure, and duct those 
emissions to control devices. As described above, commenters on the 
2011 proposal disagreed with our assessment.
    Commenters also raised concerns about worker safety and comfort in 
designing and operating full enclosure systems. We believe that such 
issues can be overcome with proper ventilation design and installation 
of air conditioning systems and other steps to ensure these issues are 
not a problem. However, after further review and evaluation, we 
conclude that it would be quite costly for these facilities to become 
fully enclosed with negative pressure and achieve the appropriate 
ventilation and conditioning of indoor air.
    We re-evaluated the costs and operational feasibility associated 
with the full building enclosure with negative pressure. We consulted 
with ventilation experts who have worked with hot process fugitives 
similar to those found in the ferroalloys industry (e.g., electric arc 
furnace steel mini-mills and secondary lead smelters). We determined 
that substantially more air flow, air exchanges, ductwork, fans and 
control devices and supporting structural improvements would be needed 
(compared to what we had estimated in the 2011 proposal) to achieve 
negative pressure and also ensure adequate ventilation and air quality 
in these large furnace buildings. Therefore, as explained in the 
supplemental proposal, we determined that the proposed negative 
pressure approach presented in the 2011 proposal would be much more 
expensive than what we had estimated in 2011 and may not be feasible 
for these facilities.
    As mentioned above, for the supplemental proposal, we also 
evaluated another option based on enhanced capture of the process 
fugitive emissions using a combination of effective local capture with 
primary hooding close to the emissions sources and/or secondary capture 
of remaining fugitives with roof-line capture hoods and control 
devices. These buildings are currently designed such that fugitive 
emissions that are not captured by the primary hoods flow upward with a 
natural draft to the open roof vents and are vented to the atmosphere 
uncontrolled. Under our enhanced control scenario, the primary capture 
close to the emissions sources would be significantly improved with 
effective local hooding and ventilation and the remaining fugitive 
emissions (that are not captured by the primary hoods) would be drawn 
up to the roof-line and

[[Page 37381]]

captured with secondary hooding and vented to control devices.
    In cases where additional collection of fugitives from the roof 
areas is needed to comply with the rule, fume collection areas may be 
isolated via baffles (so the area above the furnace where fumes collect 
may be kept separated from ``empty'' spaces in large buildings) and 
roof openings over fume collection areas can be sealed and fumes 
directed to control devices. The fugitive emission capture system 
should achieve inflow at the building floor, but outflow toward the 
roof where most of the remaining fugitives would be captured by the 
secondary hooding. We concluded that a rigorous, systematic examination 
of the ventilation requirements throughout the building is the key to 
developing a fugitive emission capture system (consisting of primary 
hoods, secondary hoods, enclosures, and/or building ventilation ducted 
to PM control devices) that can be designed and operated to achieve 
very low levels of fugitive emissions. Such an evaluation considers 
worker health, safety, and comfort and it is designed to optimize 
existing ventilation options (fan capacity and hood design). Thus, we 
concluded that an enhanced capture system based on these design 
principles does represent an advancement in technology. We estimate 
that this type of control system could capture 95 percent of the 
process fugitive emissions and vent those emissions to PM control 
devices. This enhanced local capture option is described in more detail 
in the Revised Technology Review for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category and in the Cost Impacts of Control Options to Address Fugitive 
HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Supplemental 
Proposal documents, which are available in the docket.
    Under this control option, the cost elements vary by plant and 
furnace and include the following:
     Curtains or doors surrounding furnace tops to contain 
fugitive emissions;
     Improvements to hoods collecting tapping emissions;
     Upgrade fans to improve the airflow of fabric filters 
controlling fugitive emissions;
     Addition of ``secondary capture'' or additional hoods to 
capture emissions from tapping platforms or crucibles;
     Addition of fugitives capture for casting operations;
     Improvement of existing control devices or addition of 
fabric filters; and
     Addition of rooftop ventilation, in which fugitive 
emissions escaping local capture are collected in the roof canopy over 
process areas through addition of partitions, hoods, and then directed 
through ducts to control devices.
    We estimate the total capital costs of installing the required 
ductwork, fans and control devices under the enhanced capture option 
(which is described above and in more detail in the Cost Impacts of 
Control Options to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP Supplemental Proposal document) to be $40.3 million 
and the total annualized cost to be $7.7 million for the two plants. 
The total estimated HAP reduction for the enhanced capture option is 77 
tpy at a cost per ton of $103,000 ($52 per pound). We also estimate 
that this option would achieve PM emission reductions of 229 tpy, 
resulting in cost per ton of PM removed of $34,600 per ton and achieve 
particulate matter 2.5 microns and less (PM2.5) emission 
reductions of 48 tons per year, resulting in a cost per ton of 
PM2.5 removal of $165,000 per ton. We believe these controls 
for process fugitive HAP emissions (described above), which are based 
on enhanced capture (with primary and secondary hooding) are feasible 
for the Ferroalloys Production source category from a technical 
standpoint and are cost effective. These cost effectivenesses are in 
the range of cost effectiveness for PM and HAP metals from other 
previous rules. However, it is important to note that there is no 
bright line for determining acceptable cost effectiveness for HAP 
metals. Each rulemaking is different and various factors must be 
considered. Some of the other factors we consider when making decisions 
whether to establish standards beyond-the-floor (BTF) under CAA section 
112(d)(2) or under CAA section 112(d)(6) include, but are not limited 
to, the following: which of the HAP metals are being reduced and by how 
much; total capital costs; annual costs; and costs compared to total 
revenues (e.g., costs to revenue ratios).
    As described in the supplemental proposal, we also re-evaluated the 
option based on full building enclosure with negative pressure.
    Based on those analyses, we concluded in the supplemental proposal 
and conclude again in this action that the full-building enclosure 
option with negative pressure may not be feasible and would have 
significant economic impacts on the facilities (including potential 
closure for one or more facilities). Therefore, we are not promulgating 
an option based on full building enclosure with negative pressure.
    However, consistent with the supplemental proposal, we conclude 
that the enhanced local capture option is a feasible and cost-effective 
approach to achieve significant reductions in fugitive HAP emissions 
and will achieve almost as much reductions as the full-building 
enclosure option (229 vs. 252 tons PM reductions) and, thus, achieving 
most of the emission reductions at significantly lower costs. In light 
of the technical feasibility and cost effectiveness of the enhanced 
capture option, we are promulgating the enhanced capture option under 
the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA.
    Regarding monitoring requirements, as described above, in the 2011 
proposal, we proposed that facilities would need to conduct day-to-day 
continuous monitoring of differential pressure to comply with the 
proposed full building enclosure with negative pressure requirements.
    With the move to the enhanced local capture alternative option, 
there is no longer any requirement to monitor negative pressure. Under 
this option, the main ongoing compliance requirements will be based on 
opacity readings and parametric monitoring. Therefore, since opacity is 
a main method of monitoring compliance for process fugitive emissions 
controls, we believe that frequent opacity monitoring is necessary, as 
reflected in the supplemental proposal. Furthermore, as we explained in 
the supplemental proposal, we believe an average opacity limit of 8 
percent is appropriate to ensure effective capture and control of 
process fugitive emissions over the entire furnace cycles and that a 
maximum opacity of 20 percent for any 2 consecutive 6-minute periods is 
appropriate to prevent spikes in fugitive emissions. Therefore, we are 
promulgating an average opacity limit of 8 percent and a maximum 
opacity limit of 20 percent for any 2 consecutive 6-minute periods.
    Regarding opacity monitoring, we are promulgating a requirement 
that facilities conduct opacity observations at least once per week for 
a full furnace cycle for each operating furnace and each MOR operation 
using the DCOT instead of Method 9. We believe the DCOT is appropriate 
for the final rule because it provides more objective and better 
substantiated opacity readings. However, as described above, we are 
allowing an opportunity for facilities to decrease frequency of opacity 
monitoring to monthly after 26 compliant weekly readings.
    Similar to the supplemental proposal, we are also finalizing the 
requirement

[[Page 37382]]

that, if the average opacity reading from the shop building is greater 
than 8-percent opacity during an observed furnace process cycle, an 
additional two more furnace process cycles must be observed such that 
the average opacity during the entire observation period is less than 
7-percent opacity. A furnace process cycle means the period in which 
the furnace is tapped to the time in which the furnace is tapped again 
and includes periods of charging, smelting, tapping, casting, and ladle 
raking.
    As mentioned above, we are also promulgating the requirement that 
at no time during operation may any two consecutive 6-minute block 
opacity readings be greater than 20-percent opacity.
    We believe that the source should demonstrate that the overall 
design of the ventilation system is adequate to achieve the final 
standards. Therefore, we are promulgating the requirement that 
facilities in this source category must install, operate, and maintain 
a process fugitives capture system that is designed to collect 95 
percent or more of the process fugitive emissions from furnace 
operations, casting MOR process, ladle raking and slag skimming and 
crushing, and screening operations, and convey the collected emissions 
to a control device that meets specified emission limits and the 
opacity limits. We are also requiring continuous monitoring of key 
ventilation operating system parameters and periodic inspections of the 
ventilation systems to ensure that the ventilation systems are 
operating as designed.
    We believe that if the facilities design the capture and control 
systems according to the most recent (at the time of construction) 
ventilation design principles recommended by the American Conference of 
Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), including detailed 
schematics of the ventilation system design, addressing variables that 
affect capture efficiency such as cross drafts and describes protocol 
or design characteristics to minimize such events and identifies 
monitoring and maintenance steps, the plan will be capable of ensuring 
the system is properly designed and continues to operate as designed. 
Therefore, we are promulgating the requirement that facilities develop 
such a plan and submit this plan to the permitting authority. The plan 
must also be incorporated into the source's operating permit and 
updated every 5 years or when there is a significant change in 
variables that affect process fugitive emissions ventilation design. 
This design plan, coupled with the requirement for frequent opacity 
observations and operating parameter monitoring, will ensure fugitive 
emissions are effectively controlled and will result in enforceable 
requirements. We recognize that other design requirements and/or more 
frequent opacity observations may yield more compliance certainty, but 
incur greater costs and not result in measurable decreases in 
emissions.
    We believe the additional PM data we received justifies the revised 
PM stack emission limits we are promulgating under the authority of 
section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. We also believe the enhanced capture and 
control is a development in technology that is feasible and cost 
effective, so we are promulgating the enhanced local capture and 
control option under the authority of section 112(d)(6) of the CAA. 
Furthermore, we believe it is appropriate to promulgate the DCOT to 
ensure adequate furnace capture and control.

C. CAA Section 112(d)(2) & (3) Revisions for the Ferroalloys Production 
Source Category

1. What did we propose pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    In the November 23, 2011, proposal, we proposed a formaldehyde 
emission limit of 201 [mu]g/dscm for any new, reconstructed, or 
existing electric arc furnace.
    In the October 6, 2014, supplemental proposal, we proposed the 
following:
     HCL emission limit of 180 [mu]g/dscm for new or 
reconstructed electric arc furnaces and 1,100 [mu]g/dscm for existing 
electric arc furnaces;
     Hg emission limit of 17 [mu]g/dscm for new or 
reconstructed electric arc furnaces producing FeMn, and 170 [mu]g/dscm 
for existing electric arc furnaces producing FeMn;
     Hg emission limit of 4 [mu]g/dscm for new or reconstructed 
electric arc furnaces producing SiMn and 12 [mu]g/dscm for existing 
electric arc furnaces producing SiMn;
     PAH emission limit of 880 mu;g/dscm for new or 
reconstructed electric arc furnaces producing FeMn and 1,400 [mu]g/dscm 
for existing electric arc furnaces producing FeMn; and
     PAH emission limit of 72 [mu]g/dscm for new or 
reconstructed electric arc furnaces producing SiMn and 120 [mu]g/dscm 
for existing electric arc furnaces producing SiMn.
2. How did the CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) revisions change for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    In mid-August 2014, a few weeks prior to the signature of the 
supplemental proposal, we received a test report with Hg and PAH data, 
which we were unable to incorporate into the proposed limits in the 
supplemental proposal, in part because of the timing and in part 
because we had not completed our review and technical analysis of the 
data. We noted receipt of the data and invited comment on it in the 
supplemental proposal, and made the data available for review. We 
committed to considering these data in the final rule based on public 
comment and our technical analysis. In addition to the pre-supplemental 
proposal data, another Hg and PAH test report was received during the 
comment period. The new test data for FeMn production received in 
August 2014 and during the comment period had much higher PAH 
concentrations than the data that were previously provided. The new PAH 
test data for SiMn production were only slightly higher than previous 
data received from the facilities. The new Hg data for both FeMn and 
SiMn production were comparable to the test data that we used to 
develop the proposed limits for the supplemental proposal.
    For this action, we re-evaluated the PAH and Hg emission limits to 
include the new test data. The 99-percent upper prediction limit (UPL) 
calculation using all the available reliable data for PAH emissions 
results in an emissions limit of 12,000 [mu]g/dscm for existing 
furnaces producing FeMn and 130 [mu]g/dscm for existing furnaces 
producing SiMn.
    With regard to new source limits, as mentioned previously, there 
are only two furnaces in the source category that produce FeMn, and 
both furnaces are located at Eramet. The units are similar in design 
and process the same types of raw materials, and we, therefore, expect 
little or no difference in the performance of these units. The 
available emissions data, which show that the two units mean emissions 
are only 2-percent different, support this hypothesis. We conclude, 
based on the similarities in the units and the available data, that 
these two furnaces achieve the same degree of control of PAH emissions 
with their current control devices. Accordingly, we consider these two 
units to be equal performers with regard to PAH emissions and 
therefore, we used all the data from both units to calculate the new 
source emissions limit. Using the 99-percent UPL calculation, we derive

[[Page 37383]]

an emissions limit of 11,500 [mu]g/dscm for new furnaces producing 
FeMn.
    For SiMn, there were no changes to the best performing source and 
the PAH limit of 72 [mu]g/dscm proposed in the supplemental proposal is 
the same limit selected for the final rule for new furnaces producing 
SiMn.
    The 99-percent UPL for PAHs for FeMn production is about 8 times 
higher than the proposed PAH limit for FeMn in the supplemental 
proposal, whereas the 99-percent UPL for PAHs for SiMn production is 
comparable to the proposed limit in the supplemental proposal. The new 
data show there is substantial variability in PAH emissions from the 
furnaces, especially during FeMn production.
    As mentioned in section III.E of this preamble, due to the large 
variation in PAH emissions from furnace stacks during FeMn production, 
we are requiring quarterly compliance tests for PAHs (i.e., four PAH 
compliance tests per year) for furnaces while producing FeMn, with an 
opportunity for facilities to apply for decreased frequency of such 
compliance testing from their permit authority after the first year and 
after four or more successful PAH compliance tests have been completed 
and submitted to the permit authority.
    We expect that any application submitted by an affected source to 
request reduced frequent compliance testing for PAHs should include 
information regarding the four or more compliant test results and what 
factors or conditions are contributing to the quantity and variation of 
PAH emissions. For example, the application could include, among other 
things, information about the amounts and types of input materials, 
types of electrodes used, electrode consumption rates, furnace 
temperature and other furnace, process or product information that may 
be affecting the PAH emissions.
    The re-evaluation of the Hg test data, which includes the new test 
data, produced a 99-percent UPL of 130 [mu]g/dscm for existing furnaces 
producing FeMn and 12 [mu]g/dscm for existing furnaces producing SiMn. 
For new sources, the new test data did not affect the 99-percent UPL of 
4 [mu]g/dscm for new furnaces producing SiMn.
    With regard to the new source limit in the supplemental proposal 
for Hg for furnaces producing FeMn, the proposed new source limit was 
based on BTF controls using activated carbon injection (ACI), and 
assuming 90-percent reduction. We continue to conclude that it is 
appropriate to require BTF controls for new FeMn sources consistent 
with the supplemental proposal (assuming 90-percent reduction). 
Therefore, we calculate that the new source limit for the final rule 
for Hg for furnaces producing FeMn will be 13 [mu] g/dscm (i.e., 130 
[mu] g/dscm minus 90-percent control). These UPL values are generally 
consistent with, but a bit lower than, the proposed limits in the 
supplemental proposal.
3. What key comments did we receive on the CAA section 112(d)(2) & (3) 
proposed revisions, and what are our responses?
    Several comments were received regarding the CAA section 112(d)(2) 
& (3) proposed revisions for the Ferroalloys Production source 
category. The following is a summary of these comments and our 
responses. Other comments received and our responses can be found in 
the document titled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutant Emissions: Ferroalloys Production Summary of Public Comments 
and the EPA's Responses on Proposed Rule (76 FR 72508, November 23, 
2011) and Supplemental Proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), which 
is available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895).
    Comment: Commenters claimed the EPA was establishing MACT floors 
for the newly regulated HAP based on limited data. The commenters noted 
that for many of these pollutants, there is limited understanding of 
the mechanism of their generation in the process and the variability in 
the level of their occurrence. As a result, it is essential that EPA 
use all reasonably available data in establishing these standards.
    The commenters noted the EPA excluded PAH data for both SiMn and 
FeMn production, that showed higher levels of emissions. They believe 
the exclusion of these data led to calculation of a proposed MACT floor 
for PAH that is below the level that can be demonstrably achieved by 
the best performing sources.
    The commenters argued that the EPA should reconsider its decision 
not to include these data in calculation of the MACT floor. One 
commenter noted that additional testing to better characterize 
variability, particularly for PAH, was being performed prior to the 
comment period for the supplemental proposal and encouraged the EPA to 
consider these additional data in calculating the MACT floor levels for 
the final standard.
    Response: We have received multiple test reports from the industry 
during the development of the supplemental proposal and during the 
comment period for the supplemental proposal. Each test report received 
was reviewed to determine if the test met the quality assurance/quality 
control (QA/QC) requirements for this RTR. Only test data that met 
these requirements were used to estimate emissions used for determining 
residual risk from the emissions sources and for determining the MACT 
floor limits. Most data we received passed the QA/QC process and were 
judged to be valid data and were used in our risk analyses and MACT 
floor calculations, including data received shortly before publication 
of the supplemental proposal and data received during the comment 
period. The final rule MACT floor limits include the updated data. 
However, a few tests we received previously did not meet the QA/QC 
requirements and, therefore, were not used in these analyses. For 
further explanation of the data evaluation, see the Revised Development 
of the Risk and Technology Review (RTR) Emissions Dataset for the 
Ferroalloys Production Source Category for the 2015 Final Rule 
document, which is available in the docket.
    Even though some of the test data received did not meet the QA/QC 
requirements for this RTR, we believe we still have a robust set of 
test data for most of the HAP and the majority of the MACT floor 
analyses are based on multiple tests from each of the facilities.
    Comment: One commenter believes the EPA has not demonstrated that 
ACI on new furnaces will provide any benefits. The commenter notes that 
the EPA estimated that Eramet emits only an estimated 274 pounds of Hg 
per year, and Hg emissions do not contribute to multipathway exposures 
exceeding an HQ of 1. Thus, reducing Hg emissions would not address any 
existing risks.
    If no added cost was involved, lowering Hg emissions might be a 
worthwhile objective. But, the fact is that cost is a relevant concern 
under CAA section 112(d)(2) and, as discussed below, achieving the 
proposed new source standards would be prohibitively expensive.
    The commenter states that the EPA justifies its conclusion that ACI 
is affordable for new sources based on the assumption that any new 
source will be built with a baghouse. As a threshold matter, the EPA's 
assertion that ACI is cost effective when applied to baghouse-
controlled sources is contradicted by its own supporting memorandum. 
According to Table 6-3 of the Memorandum from Bradley Nelson, EC/R, 
Inc. to Phil Mulrine, EPA OAQPS/SPPD/MICG on Mercury Control Options 
and Impacts for the Ferroalloys Production Industry (Aug. 29, 2014),

[[Page 37384]]

adding ACI is 5 times more expensive to add to a baghouse than to a 
scrubber, and operational costs are 3 times higher. The table, thus, 
indicates that the cost per pound of Hg removed would be higher, not 
lower, for EMI's baghouse-controlled source, and EPA's estimated 
marginal cost is $22,195 per pound, almost twice the cost presented by 
the EPA in the preamble to the 2014 proposal. Since this is based on an 
unrealistic removal rate, the unit cost would actually be at least 
$44,000 per pound of Hg removed.
    Second, the commenter states that the sole economic justification 
for ACI is the EPA's substantially understated unit cost of $17,600 for 
each pound of Hg removed. The EPA's cost-per-pound metric is completely 
untethered to any cost-benefit analysis. To say how much it will cost 
to remove a pound of Hg provides no practical basis for assessing the 
relative value of removing that pound of Hg or the relative ability of 
a ferroalloys producer to absorb that cost. The docket contains no 
demonstration, much less substantial evidence, that the lower cost 
would nevertheless be affordable by EMI.
    Finally, the commenter notes that the facility is captive to the 
pricing structure imposed by low-cost foreign ferroalloy producers who 
will not be subject to the requirements of this rule. Accordingly, 
foreign producers prevent the facility from passing on costs such as 
this to customers via higher prices. Before that facility can construct 
a new furnace, it would have to determine that the new furnace would 
produce a positive return large enough to cover the cost of 
constructing and operating that additional furnace, while charging the 
same price charged by producers not incurring the added costs of ACI. 
The EPA provides no explanation for why it believes this would be 
possible and our analysis strongly suggests that it would not be 
possible.
    The commenter states that the net result is that the proposed new 
source standard effectively prevents EMI from increasing FeMn 
production in the future via a new furnace and ensures that when the 
existing furnaces require replacement, they will not be replaced with 
furnaces capable of producing FeMn. The EPA's proposed new source 
standard is inconsistent with EPA's recognition in the 2014 proposal 
that EMI is the sole U.S. source of FeMn for domestic steel production, 
and its judgment that ACI should not be immediately required, in part, 
because such a requirement would likely force EMI out of business. The 
proposed Hg ``beyond-the-MACT-floor standard'' produces the same result 
that the EPA agrees should be avoided, only at a later date.
    Response: Activated carbon injection in conjunction with fabric 
filter technology has been successfully used to reduce emissions of Hg 
from a number of different industries. In addition, the use of 
brominated carbon has been used to oxidize the Hg allowing even greater 
control effectiveness for Hg.
    The determination of the Hg limits for new or major reconstructed 
furnaces is based on the assurance that such sources would be 
constructed to include a baghouse as the primary PM control device (in 
order to comply with the proposed lower new source limits for PM) and 
then they could add ACI after the baghouse for Hg control along with a 
polishing baghouse and would achieve at least 90-percent reduction of 
Hg.
    In the supplemental proposal, the estimated costs for beyond the 
floor controls for mercury for new and reconstructed sources were based 
on the costs of installing and operating brominated ACI and a polishing 
baghouse. Based on this, in the supplemental proposal, we estimated 
that the cost effectiveness of BTF controls for a new and major 
reconstructed FeMn production source would be about $12,000/lb. This 
cost effectiveness estimate is well within the range of cost 
effectiveness levels we have decided were reasonable in other rules. 
Furthermore, no other significant economic factors were identified that 
would indicate that these limits would be inappropriate or infeasible 
for new sources. Therefore, in the supplemental proposal, we concluded 
that BTF controls would be cost-effective and feasible for any new or 
major reconstructed furnace that produces FeMn.
    We received new Hg test data prior to and during the comment period 
for the supplemental proposal. Using these new test data along with the 
previous data we re-evaluated the cost of installing ACI to reduce Hg. 
Similar to the supplemental proposal, we estimated costs for BTF 
controls for Hg for new and reconstructed sources based on the costs of 
installing and operating brominated ACI and a polishing baghouse. Based 
on this re-evaluation, we estimate that the cost effectiveness of 
installing ACI for a new and major reconstructed FeMn production source 
would be about $13,600/lb for a furnace producing FeMn 50 percent of 
the year, and $7,100/lb for a furnace producing FeMn 100 percent of the 
year.
    These cost effectiveness estimates are similar to the estimate we 
presented in the supplemental proposal for the beyond the floor option 
for new FeMn furnaces and continue to be within the range of cost 
effectivenesses we have determined are reasonable for mercury control 
in other rulemakings. Furthermore, no other significant economic 
factors were identified that would indicate these limits would be 
inappropriate or infeasible for new or major reconstructed furnaces 
that produce FeMn. Therefore, we believe the BTF control option for Hg 
emissions is economically and technically feasible for new and major 
reconstructed FeMn furnaces and that these cost effectivenesses are 
acceptable for any new or major reconstructed furnace that produces 
FeMn. Additional discussion of the EPA's BTF analyses for mercury are 
available in the Final Rule Mercury Control Options and Impacts for the 
Ferroalloys Production Industry document and in the Mercury Control 
Options and Impacts for the Ferroalloys Production Industry document 
(dated August 2014) that EPA published in support of the 2014 
supplemental proposal. These documents are available in the docket for 
this action.
    An assessment of the cost effectiveness of emission reductions, 
along with other economic factors, is an appropriate method for 
assessing cost impacts in standard setting when CAA section 112 allows 
cost to be a factor in EPA's decision-making. Nothing in CAA section 
112 compels EPA to use cost-benefit analysis in standard-setting 
decisions. Moreover, to the extent the commenter bases its position 
that the new source BTF standard for mercury lacks benefits because it 
does not address ``any existing risk,'' the court of appeals has held 
that risk is not a consideration when setting MACT standards, as in 
Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 981 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The emission 
standards in this rule discharge EPA's CAA section 112(d)(2) duties 
with respect to Hg emissions from new and existing electric arc 
furnaces in this source category.
4. What is the rationale for our final approach for the CAA section 
112(d)(2) and (3) revisions?
    We evaluated and rejected BTF options for the CAA section 112(d)(2) 
and (3) revisions in the supplemental proposal and proposed MACT floor 
emissions limits for formaldehyde, HCl, Hg, and PAH for existing 
sources. We also evaluated and rejected BTF options for new sources for 
formaldehyde, HCl, and PAHs. For Hg, we also evaluated BTF options for 
new furnaces. We rejected BTF for new SiMn furnaces. However, we 
proposed BTF limits for Hg for FeMn furnaces. See the Revised

[[Page 37385]]

MACT Floor Analysis for the Ferroalloys Production Source Category 
document and the Final Rule Mercury Control Options and Impacts for the 
Ferroalloys Production Industry document, which are available in the 
docket.
    We are promulgating MACT floor-based limits for the four HAP 
described above for existing sources under CAA section 112(d)(2) and 
(3) as described above, which is the same approach as in the 
supplemental proposal. Regarding new sources, we are promulgating MACT 
floor limits for new sources for formaldehyde, HCl, and PAHs, and for 
Hg for new SiMn furnaces. However, we are promulgating a BTF limit for 
Hg for FeMn furnaces.
    The limits for HCl and formaldehyde are exactly the same as 
proposed. The Hg limits for FeMn and SiMn production and PAH limits for 
SiMn production changed slightly due to the inclusion of additional 
data. The only significant change was for the PAH limit for FeMn 
production, which is about 8 times higher than what we proposed. In our 
supplemental proposal, we provided notice of receipt of the highest 
test data (i.e., the data received in August 2014) which when combined 
with the other data resulted in a higher PAH limit. While these data 
had not been completely QA/QCed before the supplemental proposal, both 
the method for calculating a limit and most of the data on which the 
final limit was calculated were available and addressed in the 
supplemental proposal. Furthermore, commenters agreed that the final 
limit should be based on all available valid data. As we stated 
previously, any changes to the Hg and PAH emissions limits were a 
result of using all of the available valid data which resulted in a 
change to the MACT floor calculations. Additional data received during 
the comment period confirmed a higher PAH limit was justified.

D. What changes did we make to the Ferroalloys Production opacity 
monitoring requirement?

1. What changes did we propose for the ferroalloys production opacity 
monitoring requirement?
    In the 2014 supplemental proposal, the EPA solicited comment 
regarding the use of new technologies to provide continuous or near 
continuous long term approaches to monitoring emissions from industrial 
sources such as the ferroalloys production facilities within this 
source category. Specifically, we were seeking comment on the 
feasibility and practice associated with the use of automated opacity 
monitoring with ASTM D7520-13, using DCOT at fixed points to interpret 
visible emissions from roof vents associated with the processes at each 
facility, and how this technology could potentially be included as part 
of the requirements in the NESHAP for ferroalloys production sources.
2. How did the opacity monitoring requirements change for the 
Ferroalloys Production source category?
    Based on the information we received during the comment period for 
the supplemental proposal and after further evaluation of the 
technology, we believe that the use of DCOT can provide opacity 
readings comparable to Method 9 and reduce the burden of requiring a 
person to conduct opacity readings over the furnace cycle. Furthermore, 
the DCOT provides objective and well-substantiated readings of opacity. 
The DCOT camera provides an image that the facility could access 
immediately, with QA/QC done within 45 minutes to validate the image 
and initial readings. In comparison, it would take a field observer 
roughly 30 minutes to return from the field and average their manually 
assembled data such that they can report the average that they recorded 
over the previous 90 minutes of observations. We view the initial 
visible recording as sufficient evidence to provide the facility enough 
reason to initiate, investigate, and correct concerns that may create 
elevated visual emissions observations, and the 45-minute turnaround 
time on actual opacity values to be quick enough to provide a facility 
the confirmation they would need to be assured that they have taken 
appropriate action.
3. What key comments did we receive on the opacity monitoring 
requirement, and what are our responses?
    Comment: In their supplemental proposal comments, one commenter 
objects to the significantly increased frequency of opacity 
observations from once every 5 years to weekly. They note that the 
Agency states that the frequency is ``appropriate'' to demonstrate 
compliance with the process fugitive standard with the enhanced 
frequency presumably substituting for the continuous negative pressure 
monitoring obligations from the 2011 proposal.
    The commenter believes that this explanation overlooks the 
stringent continuous monitoring that the proposed rule already requires 
to ensure that the process fugitives control system meets the 95-
percent capture requirement. First, the facility must develop a plan to 
demonstrate 95-percent capture, and that plan must be approved by the 
permitting authority. Next, the facility must perform an initial 
compliance demonstration. The facility must then identify specific 
parameters, either through the engineering assessment or the initial 
compliance demonstration, that are indicative of compliance with the 
opacity standard. Finally, on an ongoing basis, the facility must 
routinely monitor those parameters.
    The commenter notes that an initial compliance demonstration and 
ongoing monitoring is a standard regulatory approach required in any 
number of MACT standards. However, none of these other standards 
require weekly testing to confirm that the parameters and limits are 
still being met and many other standards require re-testing only every 
5 years, or at most annually. They believe that nothing in the current 
proposal demonstrates why it is necessary or appropriate to deviate 
from this standard approach here.
    Two commenters believe that the proposed weekly opacity testing 
will impose significant ongoing costs on the facilities for no 
additional environmental benefit. They believe that the ongoing 
parametric monitoring is sufficient to ensure compliance on an ongoing 
basis.
    These commenters believe that the weekly opacity reading 
requirement is overly burdensome, especially for Eramet because they 
have three shop buildings. They estimate 3-5 hours per building opacity 
reading for a total of 9-15 hours a week for reading opacity.
    Response: We re-evaluated the opacity monitoring requirements in 
the supplemental proposal and determined that the DCOT and ASTM D7520-
13 provided a development that ensures compliance with the fugitive 
emissions standards, as well as reduces the labor burden on the 
facilities. After initial setup, the DCOT can measure the opacity 
during the furnace process cycle without any labor needed. In addition, 
facilities would not have the cost of annual certification as is the 
case with Method 9. We estimate that the overall costs of DCOT and ASTM 
D7520-13 will be approximately the same as what the overall costs would 
be if facilities used method 9. In addition, due to the baseline 
unacceptable risk finding being based largely on process fugitive 
manganese emissions, we believe the frequent opacity readings using the 
objective and substantiated results of DCOT are warranted to ensure 
fugitive emissions are effectively captured and controlled. However, 
after considering comments, we decided to allow facilities an 
opportunity to reduce the

[[Page 37386]]

frequency of opacity readings to once per month per furnace building 
(instead of weekly) if the facility achieves 26 consecutive compliant 
weekly readings for that furnace building. This reduction in frequency 
will reduce the cost burden for the facilities. However, if any of the 
subsequent monthly readings exceed the opacity limit for that furnace 
building, the facility must return to weekly readings until they 
achieve another 26 compliant weekly readings, at which time the 
facility can return to monthly readings.
    Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's determination that 
opacity observations should be measured over a furnace process cycle. 
However, because all furnaces at the Felman facility are located in the 
same building, the commenter suggests treating the building as a single 
opacity source, and that opacity observations be conducted over a time 
period that captures a full furnace process cycle from each furnace 
within that building.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have revised the opacity 
requirements to include opacity determinations from buildings with 
multiple furnaces. The requirement will treat the building with 
multiple furnaces as a single opacity source and the opacity readings 
will be conducted over a time period that will include tapping from 
each of the furnaces in operation.
    Comment: In comments on the supplemental proposal, two commenters 
state that the EPA should require the use of the best available testing 
method, digital opacity monitoring. The commenters describe the 
benefits of the DCOT compared to Method 9 and provide supporting 
documentation. In particular, one commenter supports the DCOT because 
it is EPA certified as a valid test method for opacity and approved for 
its use, the use of a camera creates a good electronic record of the 
observations, conditions, location, etc., and a number of regulated 
entities are using this method to assess opacity. The commenter adds 
that using cameras can save resources, citing a Department of Defense 
project to reduce Method 9 certification costs. The commenter adds that 
the EPA should also require opacity determinations to be documented on 
an electronic form and provided on the Internet in real time for public 
review.
    One commenter adds that the EPA should not allow Method 9 to be 
used, unless there is a power outage requiring the facility to use 
Method 9 to assure opacity standard compliance. They also add that 
instead of Method 9, the EPA should require a source to use either 
continuous opacity monitor or DCOT.
    Response: We evaluated the use of DCOT and the ASTM D7520-13 method 
and determined that this technology provides the same compliance 
assurance as Method 9 measurements with approximately the same overall 
burden on the facilities and the DCOT provides reliable, unbiased 
opacity readings. Therefore, we are requiring opacity determinations to 
be made using DCOT and ASTM D7520-13. With regard to the comment 
suggesting that the DCOT results be documented in an electronic format 
and provided on the internet in real time, the DCOT results will be 
recorded in an electronic format. Furthermore, use of the DCOT will 
improve transparency of opacity monitoring results. However, we do not 
have a system established to provide these results on the internet in 
real time. Furthermore, the ERT is not yet configured to be able to 
accept the DCOT compliance images. Nevertheless, the rule requires the 
affected sources to maintain electronic records of the DCOT results and 
submit periodic compliance monitoring reports to the Administrator or 
permit authority. We believe that the public will be able to obtain 
copies of the compliance results within a reasonable amount of time by 
contacting the EPA and/or the permit authority through the appropriate 
channels.
    Comment: One commenter requests a clarification to the proposed 
regulatory language: That EPA add the phrase ``over a furnace process 
cycle'' at the end of 40 CFR 63.1623(b)(3). As written in the 
supplemental proposal, the language requires that opacity emissions not 
exceed 8 percent, but no averaging time is specified. The proposed 
subsections, Sec.  63.1623(b)(3)(i) though (iii) stated that the 
compliance demonstration for this obligation must be determined over 
the course of an entire furnace process cycle, but they do not clearly 
state that the limit itself is 8 percent over the entire furnace 
process cycle, and not, for example, an instantaneous limit, or 8 
percent over a 6-minute period. To avoid misunderstanding, this 
averaging period should be stated clearly as part of the standard 
itself.
    Response: We agree with the commenter and have included language 
that clarifies the opacity requirement in the final rule.
4. What is the rationale for our final decision for the opacity 
monitoring requirement?
    We are finalizing requirements to measure opacity from the furnace 
buildings using ASTM D7520-13 and digital camera technology because we 
conclude this is the best method to ensure reliable and unbiased 
readings for opacity. We are also finalizing the requirement that 
facilities need to meet an average opacity standard of no more than 8-
percent opacity for each furnace cycle. Furthermore, we are finalizing 
the requirement that at no time during operation may any two 
consecutive 6-minute block opacity readings (12-minute period) be 
greater than 20-percent opacity.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional 
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected facilities?

    Eramet Marietta Incorporated, in Marietta, Ohio and Felman 
Production LLC, in Letart West Virginia, are the 2 manganese 
ferroalloys production facilities currently operating in the United 
States that will be affected by these amendments. We do not know of any 
new facilities that are expected to be constructed in the foreseeable 
future. However, there is one other facility that has a permit to 
produce FeMn or SiMn in an electric arc furnace, but it is not doing so 
at present. It is possible, however, that this facility could resume 
production or another non-manganese ferroalloy producer could decide to 
commence production of FeMn or SiMn. Given this uncertainty, our impact 
analysis is focused on the two existing sources that are currently 
operating.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    As noted in the 2011 proposal, 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 final amendments in this rule would cut HAP emissions 
(primarily particulate metal HAP such as manganese, arsenic, and 
nickel) by about 60 percent from their current levels. Under the final 
emissions standards for process fugitives emissions from the furnace 
building, we estimate that the HAP emissions reductions would be 77 
tpy, including significant reductions of manganese.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Under the revised final amendments, each ferroalloys production 
facility is expected to incur costs for the design, installation and 
operation of an enhanced local capture system. Each facility also is 
expected to incur costs associated with the installation of additional 
control devices to manage the air flows generated by the enhanced

[[Page 37387]]

capture systems. There would also be capital costs associated with 
installing new or improved continuous monitoring systems, including 
installation of BLDS on the furnace baghouses that are not currently 
equipped with these systems and installation and operation of DCOT 
systems to monitor opacity.
    The revised capital costs for each facility were estimated based on 
the projected number and types of upgrades required. The specific 
enhancements for each facility were selected for cost estimation based 
on estimates directly provided by the facilities based on their 
engineering analyses and discussions with the EPA. The Cost Impacts of 
Control Options to Address Fugitive HAP Emissions for the Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP Supplemental Proposal document includes a complete 
description of the revised cost estimate methods used for this analysis 
and is available in the docket.
    Cost elements vary by plant and furnace and include the following 
elements:
     Curtains or doors surrounding furnace tops to contain 
fugitive emissions;
     Improvements to hoods collecting tapping emissions;
     Upgraded fans to improve the airflow of fabric filters 
controlling fugitive emissions;
     Addition of ``secondary capture'' or additional hoods to 
capture emissions from tapping platforms or crucibles;
     Addition of fugitives capture for casting operations;
     Improvement of existing control devices or addition of 
fabric filters; and
     Addition of rooftop ventilation, in which fugitive 
emissions escaping local control are collected in the roof canopy over 
process areas through addition of partitions and hoods, then directed 
through roof vents and ducts to control devices.
    For purposes of the analysis for the final rule, we assumed that 
enhanced capture systems and roofline ventilation will be installed for 
all operational furnaces at both facilities and for MOR operations at 
Eramet Marietta. The specific elements of the capture and control 
systems selected for each facility are based on information supplied by 
the facilities incorporating their best estimates of the improvements 
to fugitive emission capture and control they would implement to 
achieve the standards included in the final rule. We estimate the total 
capital costs of installing the required ductwork, fans, control 
devices, and monitoring to comply with the enhanced capture system 
requirements to be $40.3 million and the total annualized cost to be 
$7.7 million (2012 dollars) for the two plants. We estimate that 
enhanced capture and control systems required by this rule will reduce 
metal HAP emissions by 75 tons, resulting in a cost per ton of metal 
HAP removed to be $106,000 per ton ($53 per pound). The total HAP 
reduction for the enhanced capture and control systems is estimated to 
be 77 tpy at a cost per ton of $103,000 per ton ($52 per pound). We 
also estimate that these systems will achieve PM emission reductions of 
229 tpy, resulting in cost per ton of PM removed of $34,600 per ton and 
achieve PM2.5 emission reductions of 48 tpy, resulting in a 
cost per ton of PM2.5 removal of $165,000 per ton.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    As a result of the requirements in this final rule, we estimate 
that the total capital cost for the Eramet facility will be about $25.4 
million and the total annualized costs will be about $5.6 million (in 
2012 dollars). For impacts to Felman Production LLC, this facility is 
estimated to incur a total capital cost of $14.9 million and a total 
annualized costs of just under $2.1 million (in 2012 dollars). In 
total, these costs could lead to an increase in annualized cost of 
about 1.9 percent of sales, which serves as an estimate for the 
increase in product prices, and a decrease in output of as much as 10.1 
percent. For more information regarding economic impacts, please refer 
to the Economic Impact Analysis report and the summary of public 
comments and EPA's responses document which are included in the public 
docket for this final rule.

E. What are the benefits?

    The estimated reductions in HAP emissions (i.e., about 77 tpy) that 
will be achieved by this action will provide significant benefits to 
public health. For example, there will be a significant reduction in 
emissions of HAP metals (especially manganese, arsenic, nickel, 
chromium, cadmium, and lead). The rule will also achieve some 
reductions of Hg and PAHs. In addition to the HAP reductions, we also 
estimate that this final rule will reduce 48 tons in PM2.5 
emissions as a co-benefit of the HAP reductions annually.
    This rulemaking is not an ``economically significant regulatory 
action'' under Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Therefore, we 
have not conducted a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for this 
rulemaking or a benefits analysis. While we expect that these avoided 
emissions will result in improvements in air quality and reduce health 
effects associated with exposure to HAP associated with these 
emissions, we have not quantified or monetized the benefits of reducing 
these emissions for this rulemaking. This does not imply that there are 
no benefits associated with these emission reductions. In fact, our 
demographic analysis indicates that thousands of people live within 50 
kilometers of these two facilities and these people will experience 
benefits because of the reduced exposure to air toxics due to this 
rulemaking.
    When determining if the benefits of an action exceed its costs, 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct the Agency to consider 
qualitative benefits that are difficult to quantify but essential to 
consider. Controls installed to reduce HAP would also reduce ambient 
concentrations of PM2.5 as a co-benefit. Reducing exposure 
to PM2.5 is associated with significant human health 
benefits, including avoided premature mortality and morbidity from 
cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses. Researchers have associated 
PM2.5 exposure with adverse health effects in numerous 
toxicological, clinical and epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 
2009).\4\ When adequate data and resources are available and an RIA is 
required, the EPA generally quantifies several health effects 
associated with exposure to PM2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2012).\5\ These 
health effects include premature mortality for adults and infants, 
cardiovascular morbidities such as heart attacks, hospital admissions 
and respiratory morbidities such as asthma attacks, acute bronchitis, 
hospital and emergency department visits, work loss days, restricted 
activity days, and respiratory symptoms. The scientific literature also 
suggests that exposure to PM2.5 is also associated with 
adverse effects on birth weight, pre-term births, pulmonary function 
and other cardiovascular and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009), but 
the EPA has not quantified certain outcomes of these impacts in its 
benefits analyses. PM2.5 also increases light extinction, 
which is

[[Page 37388]]

an important aspect of reduced visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. 
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report). 
EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment--RTP 
Division. Available on the Internet at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546.
    \5\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2012. 
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. 
Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. Available 
on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rulemaking is also anticipated to reduce emissions of other 
HAP, including metal HAP (arsenic, cadmium, chromium (both total and 
hexavalent), lead compounds, manganese, and nickel) and PAHs. Some of 
these HAP are carcinogenic (e.g., arsenic, PAHs) and some are toxic and 
have effects other than cancer (e.g., kidney disease from cadmium, 
respiratory, and immunological effects from nickel). While we cannot 
quantitatively estimate the benefits achieved by reducing emissions of 
these HAP, qualitative benefits are expected as a result of reducing 
exposures to these HAP. More information about the health effects of 
these HAP can be found on the IRIS,\6\ ATSDR,\7\ and California EPA \8\ 
Web pages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. EPA, 2006. Integrated Risk Information System. http://www.epa.gov/iris/index.html.
    \7\ U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006. 
Minimum Risk Levels (MRLs) for Hazardous Substances. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls/index.html.
    \8\ CA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2005. 
Chronic Reference Exposure Levels Adopted by OEHHA as of December 
2008. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    As explained in section IV.A of this preamble, we assessed the 
impacts to various demographic groups. The methodology and the results 
of the analyses are described in the Risk and Technology Review--
Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors for Populations Living Near 
Ferroalloys Facilities, which is available in the docket.
    Based on that assessment, we conclude that this final rule will 
reduce the number of people exposed to elevated risks, from 
approximately 41,000, to about 26,000 people exposed to a potential 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and from 1,300 to 
zero people exposed to a potential chronic noncancer hazard level of 1. 
Based on this analysis, the EPA has determined that these final rule 
requirements 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. See Section VI.J of this preamble for more 
information.

G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we conduct?

    This action 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, 
which is available in the docket, shows that, prior to the 
implementation of the provisions included in this final rule, on a 
nationwide basis, there are approximately 41,000 people exposed to a 
cancer risk at or above 1-in-1 million and approximately 1,300 people 
exposed to a chronic noncancer TOSHI greater than 1 due to emissions 
from the source category. The percentages for all demographic groups 
(with the exception of those ages 65 and older, which is only slightly 
higher than the national average), including children 18 years and 
younger, are similar to or lower than their respective nationwide 
percentages. Further, implementation of the provisions included in this 
action is expected to significantly reduce the number of at-risk people 
due to HAP emissions from these sources (from approximately 41,000 to 
about 26,000 for cancer risks and from 1,300 to zero for chronic 
noncancer hazards), providing significant benefit to all demographic 
groups.
    This rule is expected to reduce environmental impacts for everyone, 
including children. This action establishes emissions limits at the 
levels based on MACT, as required by the CAA. Based on our analysis, we 
believe that this rule does not present a disproportionate risk to 
children because it increases the level of environmental protection for 
all affected populations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, 
therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR document that 
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2488.01. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in this rulemaking are based on the 
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 emission standards. These 
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining 
compliance, and 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.
    Respondents/affected entities: New and existing ferroalloys 
production facilities that produce FeMn and SiMn and are either major 
sources of HAP emissions or are co-located at major sources of HAP.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (42 U.S.C. 7414).
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: Semiannual.
    Total estimated burden: 707 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0.85 million (per year), includes $0.78 
million annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    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 OMB 
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are 
businesses that can be classified as small firms using the Small 
Business Administration size standards for their respective industries. 
The agency has determined that neither of the companies affected by 
this rule is considered to be a small entity. Details of this analysis 
are presented in the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for Risk and 
Technology Review: Ferroalloys Production Source

[[Page 37389]]

Category, which is available in the docket for this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, or on 
the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. There are no ferroalloys production facilities 
that are owned or operated by tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and 
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety 
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to 
children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in 
the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Production Source 
Category in Support of the 2015 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule 
document, which is available in the docket for this action, and are 
discussed in section V.G of this preamble.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and 1 CFR Part 51

    This final rule involves technical standards. EPA decided to use 
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' for its manual 
methods of measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the 
exhaust gas. These parts of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 are acceptable 
alternatives to EPA Method 3B. This standard is available from the 
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New 
York, NY 10016-5990.
    The EPA has also decided to use ASTM D7520-13, Standard Test Method 
for Determining the Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere, for measuring opacity from the shop buildings. This 
standard is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 9 and is available 
from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. 
See http://www.astm.org/.
    In addition, the EPA has decided to use California Air Resources 
Board Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources for measuring PAH emissions 
from the furnace control device. This method is an acceptable 
alternative to EPA Method 0010 and is available from the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB), Engineering and Certification Branch, 1001 I 
Street, P.O. Box 2815, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/testmeth/vol3/M_429.pdf.
    The EPA has also decided to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 
10, 26A, 29, 30B, 316 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No applicable VCS 
were identified for EPA Methods 30B, 5D, 316.
    Under 40 CFR 63.7(f) and 40 CFR 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 this final rule.

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

    The EPA has determined that the current health risks posed by 
emissions from this source category are unacceptable. There are up to 
41,000 people living in close proximity to the two facilities that are 
currently subject to health risks which may not be considered 
negligible (i.e., cancer risks greater than 1-in-1 million or chronic 
noncancer TOSHI greater than 1) due to emissions from this source 
category. The demographic makeup of this population is similar to the 
national distribution for all demographic groups, with the exception of 
those ages 65 and older, which is slightly higher than the national 
average. This final rule will reduce the number of people in this 
group, from approximately 41,000, to about 26,000 people exposed to a 
cancer risk greater than or equal to 1-in-1 million and from 1,300 to 
zero people for a chronic noncancer hazard index of 1. The EPA believes 
the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will 
not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or 
environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous 
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection 
for all affected populations. The results of this evaluation are 
contained in section IV.A of this preamble. A copy of this methodology 
and the results of the demographic analysis are included in a technical 
report, Risk and Technology Review--Analysis of Socio-Economic Factors 
for Populations Living Near Ferroalloys Facilities, which is available 
in the docket for this action.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: May 28, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (f)(1);

[[Page 37390]]

0
b. By redesignating paragraphs (g)(87) through (94) as paragraphs 
(g)(88) through (95), respectively;
0
c. By adding new paragraph (g)(87);
0
d. By revising paragraph (j) introductory text;
0
e. By redesignating paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) as paragraphs (j)(2) 
through (4), respectively; and
0
f. By adding new paragraph (j)(1).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981, IBR approved 
for Sec. Sec.  63.309(k), 63.457(k), 63.772(e) and (h), 63.865(b), 
63.1282(d) and (g), 63.1625(b), 63.3166(a), 63.3360(e), 63.3545(a), 
63.3555(a), 63.4166(a), 63.4362(a), 63.4766(a), 63.4965(a), 63.5160(d), 
table 4 to subpart UUUU, 63.9307(c), 63.9323(a), 63.11148(e), 
63.11155(e), 63.11162(f), 63.11163(g), 63.11410(j), 63.11551(a), 
63.11646(a), and 63.11945, table 5 to subpart DDDDD, table 4 to subpart 
JJJJJ, tables 4 and 5 of subpart UUUUU, and table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (87) ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity in a Plume in an Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' Approved 
December 1, 2013, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *
    (j) California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1001 I Street, P.O. Box 
2815, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815, Telephone (916) 327-0900, http://www.arb.ca.gov/.
    (1) Method 429, Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon 
(PAH) Emissions from Stationary Sources, Adopted September 12, 1989, 
Amended July 28, 1997, IBR approved for Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *

Subpart XXX--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and 
Silicomanganese

0
3. Sections 63.1620 through 63.1629 are added to read as follows:

Sec.
63.1620 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.1621 What are my compliance dates?
63.1622 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.1623 What are the emissions standards for new, reconstructed and 
existing facilities?
63.1624 What are the operational and work practice standards for 
new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?
63.1625 What are the performance test and compliance requirements 
for new, reconstructed, and existing facilities?
63.1626 What monitoring requirements must I meet?
63.1627 What notification requirements must I meet?
63.1628 What recordkeeping and reporting requirements must I meet?
63.1629 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
* * * * *

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 and/or 
silicomanganese production facility:
    (1) Electric 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 equipment listed in 
paragraph (b) of this section for which construction or reconstruction 
commenced after June 30, 2015.
    (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 part 70 or 
71, as applicable.
    (f) Emission standards in this subpart apply at all times.

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 63.1629 no later 
than June 30, 2017.
    (b) Affected sources in existence prior to June 30, 2015 must be in 
compliance with the provisions specified in Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 
63.1661 by November 21, 2001 and until June 30, 2017. As of June 30, 
2017, the provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 cease to 
apply to affected sources in existence prior to June 30, 2015. The 
provisions of Sec. Sec.  63.1650 through 63.1661 remain enforceable at 
a source for its activities prior to June 30, 2017.
    (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 June 30, 2015, or upon startup 
of operations, whichever is later.

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:
    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.
    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, fans and roofline ventilation systems.
    Casting means the period of time from when molten ferroalloy is 
removed from the tapping station until the 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. The furnace may be of an 
open, semi-sealed, or sealed design.
    Furnace process cycle means the period in which the furnace is 
tapped to the time in which the furnace is tapped again and includes 
periods of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and ladle raking. For 
multiple furnaces operating within a single shop building, furnace 
process cycle means a period sufficient

[[Page 37391]]

to capture a full cycle of charging, smelting, tapping, casting and 
ladle raking for each furnace within the shop building.
    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, ductwork, and fans 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 operation areas.
    Plant roadway means any area at a ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese production facility that is subject to plant mobile 
equipment, such as forklifts, 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.
    Process fugitive emissions source means a source of hazardous air 
pollutant emissions that is associated with a ferromanganese or 
silicomanganese production facility and is not a fugitive dust source 
or a stack emissions source. Process fugitive sources include emissions 
that escape capture from the electric arc furnace, tapping operations, 
casting operations, ladle treatment, MOR or crushing and screening 
equipment.
    Roofline ventilation system means an exhaust system designed to 
evacuate process fugitive emissions that collect in the roofline area 
to a control device.
    Shop building means the building which houses one or more electric 
arc furnaces or other processes that generate process fugitive 
emissions.
    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.

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

    (a) Electric arc furnaces. You must install, operate and maintain 
an effective capture system that collects the emissions from each 
electric arc furnace operation 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 (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Particulate matter emissions. (i) You must not discharge 
exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing 
particulate matter in excess of 4.0 milligrams per dry standard cubic 
meter (mg/dscm) into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed 
electric arc furnace.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing particulate matter in excess of 25 mg/dscm 
into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace.
    (2) Mercury emissions. (i) You must not discharge exhaust gases 
from each electric arc furnace operation containing mercury emissions 
in excess of 13 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter ([mu]g/dscm) 
into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc furnace 
when producing ferromanganese.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 130 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when 
producing ferromanganese.
    (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 4 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed electric arc 
furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing mercury emissions in excess of 12 [mu]g/
dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc furnace when 
producing silicomanganese.
    (3) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. (i) You must not 
discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc furnace operation 
containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions in excess of 
12,000 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or reconstructed 
electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions 
in excess of 12,000 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing 
electric arc furnace when producing ferromanganese.
    (iii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions 
in excess of 72 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any new or 
reconstructed electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (iv) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions 
in excess of 130 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing 
electric arc furnace when producing silicomanganese.
    (4) Hydrochloric acid emissions. (i) You must not discharge exhaust 
gases from each electric arc furnace operation containing hydrochloric 
acid emissions in excess of 180 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any 
new or reconstructed electric arc furnace.
    (ii) You must not discharge exhaust gases from each electric arc 
furnace operation containing hydrochloric acid emissions in excess of 
1,100 [mu]g/dscm into the atmosphere from any existing electric arc 
furnace.
    (5) Formaldehyde emissions. You must not discharge exhaust gases 
from each electric arc furnace operation containing formaldehyde 
emissions in excess of 201 [mu]g/dscm 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 is designed to collect 95 percent or 
more of the emissions from process fugitive emissions sources and 
convey the collected emissions to a control device that is demonstrated 
to meet the applicable emission limit specified in paragraph (a)(1) or 
(c) of this section.
    (2) The determination of the overall capture must be demonstrated 
as required by Sec.  63.1624(a).
    (3) Unless you meet the criteria of paragragh (b)(3)(iii) of this 
section, you must not cause the emissions exiting from a shop building 
to exceed an average of 8 percent opacity over a furnace or MOR process 
cycle.
    (i) This 8 percent opacity requirement is determined by averaging 
the

[[Page 37392]]

individual opacity readings observed during the furnace or MOR process 
cycle.
    (ii) An individual opacity reading shall be determined as the 
average of 24 consecutive images recorded at 15-second intervals with 
the opacity values from each individual digital image rounded to the 
nearest 5 percent.
    (iii) If the average opacity from the shop building is greater than 
8 percent opacity during an observed furnace or MOR process cycle, the 
opacity of two more additional furnace or MOR process cycles must be 
observed within 7 days and the average of the individual opacity 
readings during the three observation periods must be less than 8 
percent opacity.
    (iv) At no time during operation may the average of any two 
consecutive individual opacity readings be greater than 20 percent 
opacity.
    (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 4.0 mg/dscm.
    (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.
    (e) Crushing and screening equipment. You must not discharge into 
the atmosphere from any new, reconstructed, or existing piece of 
equipment associated with crushing and screening exhaust gases 
containing particulate matter in excess of 13 mg/dscm.
    (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.

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

    (a) Process fugitive emissions sources. (1) You must prepare, and 
at all times operate according to, a process fugitive emissions 
ventilation plan that documents the equipment and operations designed 
to effectively capture process fugitive emissions. The plan will be 
deemed to achieve effective capture if it consists of the following 
elements:
    (i) Documentation of engineered hoods and secondary fugitive 
capture systems designed according to the most recent, at the time of 
construction, ventilation design principles recommended by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The process 
fugitive emissions capture systems must be designed to achieve 
sufficient air changes to evacuate the collection area frequently 
enough to ensure process fugitive emissions are effectively collected 
by the ventilation system and ducted to the control device(s). The 
required ventilation systems should also use properly positioned 
hooding to take advantage of the inherent air flows of the source and 
capture systems that minimize air flows while also intercepting natural 
air flows or creating air flows to contain the fugitive emissions. 
Include a schematic for each building indicating duct sizes and 
locations, hood sizes and locations, control device types, size and 
locations and exhaust locations. The design plan must identify the key 
operating parameters and measurement locations to ensure proper 
operation of the system and establish monitoring parameter values that 
reflect effective capture.
    (ii) List of critical maintenance actions and the schedule to 
conduct them.
    (2) You must submit a copy of the process fugitive emissions 
ventilation plan to the designated permitting authority on or before 
the applicable compliance date for the affected source as specified in 
Sec.  63.1621 in electronic format and whenever an update is made to 
the plan. The requirement for you to operate the facility according to 
the written process fugitives ventilation plan and specifications must 
be incorporated in the operating permit for the facility that is issued 
by the designated permitting authority under part 70 or 71 of this 
chapter, as applicable.
    (3) You must update the information required in paragraphs (a)(1) 
and (2) of this section every 5 years or whenever there is a 
significant change in variables that affect process fugitives 
ventilation design such as the addition of a new process.
    (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 or 71 of this chapter, as 
applicable.
    (3) You may 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.

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.
    (2) Each performance test in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section 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 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.

[[Page 37393]]

    (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 determine isokinetic sampling 
rates.
    (iii) As an alternative to EPA Reference Method 3B, ASME PTC-19-10-
1981-Part 10 may be used (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  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 (i.e., 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 this part to determine outlet 
stack or inlet formaldehyde.
    (ii) Collect a minimum volume of 1.0 cubic meter.
    (9) ASTM D7520-13 to determine opacity (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  63.14) with the following conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-13, 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 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 
D7520-13.
    (iii) You must follow the recordkeeping procedures outlined in 
Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, compliance report, data 
sheets and all 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 20 percent opacity for any one reading 
and the average error must not exceed 7.5 percent opacity.
    (v) Use of this method 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 D7520-13 and these 
requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
    (10) California Air Resources Board (CARB) Method 429 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  63.14).
    (11) The owner or operator may use alternative measurement methods 
approved by the Administrator following the procedures described in 
Sec.  63.7(f).
    (c) Compliance demonstration with the emission standards--(1) 
Initial performance test. You must conduct an initial performance test 
for air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.  
63.1623(a), (b)(1), and (c) through (e) to demonstrate compliance with 
the applicable emission standards.
    (2) Periodic performance test. (i) You must conduct annual 
particulate matter tests for wet scrubber air pollution control devices 
subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission standards.
    (ii) You must conduct particulate matter tests every 5 years for 
fabric filter air pollution control devices subject to Sec.  
63.1623(a)(1) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission 
standards.
    (iii) You must conduct annual mercury performance tests for wet 
scrubber and fabric filter air pollution control devices or vent stacks 
subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(2) to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable emission standards.
    (iv) You must conduct PAH performance tests for wet scrubber and 
fabric filter air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to 
Sec.  63.1623(a)(3) to demonstrate compliance with the applicable 
emission standards.
    (A) For furnaces producing silicomanganese, you must conduct a PAH 
performance test every 5 years for each furnace that produces 
silicomanganese subject to Sec.  63.1623(a)(3).
    (B) For furnaces producing ferromanganese, you must conduct a PAH 
performance test every 3 months or 2,190 cumulative hours of 
ferromanganese production for each furnace subject to Sec.  
63.1623(a)(3).
    (C) If a furnace producing ferromanganese demonstrates compliance 
with four consecutive PAH tests, the owner/operator may petition the 
permitting authority to request reduced frequency of testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the PAH emission standards. However, this 
PAH compliance testing cannot be reduced to less than once per year.
    (v) You must conduct ongoing performance tests every 5 years for 
air pollution control devices or vent stacks subject to Sec.  
63.1623(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(1), and (c) through (e) to demonstrate 
compliance with the applicable emission standards.
    (3) 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.
    (4) Operating limits. You must establish parameter operating limits 
according to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iv) 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

[[Page 37394]]

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 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.
    (iv) 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 will have to meet the PM operating limit.
    (d) Compliance demonstration with shop building opacity standards. 
(1)(i) If you are subject to Sec.  63.1623(b), you must conduct opacity 
observations of the shop building to demonstrate compliance with the 
applicable opacity standards according to Sec.  63.6(h)(5), which 
addresses conducting opacity or visible emission observations.
    (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM 
D7520-13 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14), for a period 
that includes at least one complete furnace process cycle for each 
furnace.
    (iii) For a shop building that contains more than one furnace, you 
must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM D7520-13, for a 
period that includes one tapping period from each furnace located in 
the shop building.
    (iv) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM 
D7520-13, for a one hour period that includes at least one pouring for 
each MOR located in the shop building.
    (v) You must conduct the opacity observations at least once per 
week for each shop building containing one or more furnaces or MOR.
    (vi) You may reduce the frequency of observations to once per month 
for each shop building that demonstrates compliance with the weekly 8-
percent opacity limit for 26 consecutive complete observations that 
span a period of at least 26 weeks. Any monthly observation in excess 
of 8-percent opacity will return that shop building opacity observation 
to a weekly compliance schedule. You may reduce the frequency of 
observations again to once per month for each shop building that 
demonstrates compliance with the weekly 8-percent opacity limit after 
another 26 consecutive complete observations that span a period of at 
least 26 weeks.
    (2) You must determine shop building opacity operating parameters 
based on either monitoring data collected during the compliance 
demonstration or established in an engineering assessment.
    (i) If you choose to establish parameters based on the initial 
compliance demonstration, you must simultaneously monitor 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. Subsequently you must monitor these 
parameters according to Sec.  63.1626(g) and ensure they remain within 
10 percent of the value recorded during the compliant opacity readings.
    (ii) If you choose to establish parameters based on an engineering 
assessment, then a design analysis shall include, for example, 
specifications, drawings, schematics and ventilation system diagrams 
prepared by the owner or operator or capture or control system 
manufacturer or vendor that describes the shop building opacity system 
ventilation design based on acceptable engineering texts. The design 
analysis shall address vent stream characteristics and ventilation 
system design operating parameters such as fan amps, damper position, 
flow rate and/or other specified parameters.
    (iii) You may petition the Administrator to reestablish these 
parameter ranges whenever you can demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that the electric arc furnace or MOR operating conditions 
upon which the parameter ranges were previously established are no 
longer applicable. The values of these parameter ranges determined 
during the most recent demonstration of compliance must be maintained 
at the appropriate level for each applicable period.
    (3) You will demonstrate continuing compliance with the opacity 
standards by following the monitoring requirements specified in Sec.  
63.1626(g) and the reporting and recordkeeping requirements specified 
in Sec.  63.1628(b)(5).
    (e) Compliance demonstration with the operational and work practice 
standards--(1) Process fugitive emissions 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 an analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating 
conformance with EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection 
systems in Sec.  60.57c(h) of this chapter.

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.
    (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 or CEMS, the procedures that you specify in the standard 
operating procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance 
must, at a minimum,

[[Page 37395]]

include the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (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, you must install, 
operate and maintain a bag leak detection system according to 
paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section, unless a system meeting 
the requirements of paragraph (o) 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 (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 (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, 
see Sec.  63.14) 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 the corrective actions taken to 
minimize emissions as specified in paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (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)(ii)(A) through (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.  63.1628, 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)(4)(i).
    (f) If you use curtains or partitions to prevent process fugitive 
emissions from escaping the area around the process fugitive emission 
source or other parts of the building, you must perform quarterly 
inspections of the physical condition of these curtains or partitions 
to determine if there are any tears or openings.
    (g) Shop building opacity. In order to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the opacity standards in Sec.  63.1623, you must comply 
with the requirements Sec.  63.1625(d)(1) and one of the monitoring 
options in paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) 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) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the 
compliance test as specified in Sec.  63.1625(d)(2)(i), you must meet 
one of the following requirements.
    (i) Check and record the control system fan motor amperes and 
capture system damper positions once per shift.
    (ii) Install, calibrate and maintain a monitoring device that 
continuously records the volumetric flow rate through each separately 
ducted hood.
    (iii) 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.

[[Page 37396]]

    (2) If you choose to establish operating parameters during the 
compliance test as specified in Sec.  63.1625(d)(2)(ii), you must 
monitor the selected parameter(s) on a frequency specified in the 
assessment and according to a method specified in the engineering 
assessment
    (3) All 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) Failure to maintain the appropriate capture system parameters 
(e.g., 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.
    (h) Furnace capture system. You must perform quarterly (once every 
three months) inspections of the furnace fugitive capture system 
equipment to ensure that the hood locations have not been changed or 
obstructed because of contact with cranes or ladles, quarterly 
inspections of the physical condition of hoods and ductwork to the 
control device to determine if there are any openings or leaks in the 
ductwork, quarterly inspections of the hoods and ductwork to determine 
if there are any flow constrictions in ductwork due to dents or 
accumulated dust and quarterly examinations of the operational status 
of flow rate controllers (pressure sensors, dampers, damper switches, 
etc.) to ensure they are operating correctly. Any deficiencies must be 
recorded and proper maintenance and repairs performed.
    (i) 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 paragraph 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 (i)(1) through 
(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 (3);
    (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 Table 1 to this subpart, as applicable; and
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with provisions in Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i), and Table 1 to 
this subpart, as applicable.
    (j) 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 (j)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) The CPMS 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.
    (k) 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.
    (l) CPMS for measuring liquid flow. (1) Use a flow sensor with a 
measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the liquid flow rate; and
    (2) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (m) 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

[[Page 37397]]

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).
    (n) CPMS for measuring pH. (1) Ensure the sample is properly mixed 
and representative of the fluid to be measured.
    (2) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 
eight hours of process operation.
    (o) 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 (o)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must conduct a performance evaluation of the PM CEMS 
according to the applicable requirements of Sec.  60.13 of this chapter 
and Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (2) During each PM correlation testing run of the CEMS required by 
Performance Specification 11 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix B, 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.
    (3) Perform quarterly accuracy determinations and daily calibration 
drift tests in accordance with Procedure 2 at 40 CFR part 60, appendix 
F. 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 the results of the performance test as specified in 
Sec.  63.1628(e).

Sec.  63.1627  What notification requirements must I meet?

    (a) You must comply with all of the notification requirements of 
Sec.  63.9. Electronic notifications are encouraged when possible.
    (b)(1) You must submit the process fugitive 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(i) and the standard operating 
procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a) to the 
Administrator or delegated authority. You must submit this notification 
no later than June 30, 2016. For sources that commenced construction or 
reconstruction after June 30, 2015, 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 June 30, 2015, you 
must submit this notification no later than June 30, 2016.
    (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 and whenever an update is made to the procedure.

Sec.  63.1628  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 (11) 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(c) as part of the practices described in the 
standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.1626(a).
    (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 are below the 
established minimum operating limits and an explanation of the 
corrective actions taken.
    (5) Electronic records of the shop building capture system 
monitoring required under Sec.  63.1626(g)(1) and (2), as applicable, 
or identification of periods when the capture system parameters were 
not maintained and an explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (6) Records of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace 
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(h).
    (7) Electronic records of the continuous flow monitors or pressure 
monitors required under Sec.  63.1626(i) and (j) 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(i).
    (9) Records of the occurrence and duration of each startup and/or 
shutdown.
    (10) Records of the occurrence and duration of each malfunction of 
operation (i.e., process equipment) or the air pollution control 
equipment and monitoring equipment.
    (11) 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(i) and the standard operating procedures manual for 
baghouses required under Sec.  63.1626(a).
    (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 (7) of this section.
    (1) Reports that identify and 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(i) and the

[[Page 37398]]

standard operating procedures manual for baghouses required under Sec.  
63.1626(a) were not followed.
    (2) Reports that identify the periods when the average hourly 
pressure drop or flow rate of wet 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(g)(1) and (2), as applicable, identification of 
periods when the capture system parameters were not maintained and an 
explanation of the corrective actions taken.
    (5) Reports of the results of quarterly inspections of the furnace 
capture system required under Sec.  63.1626(h).
    (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 the owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to 
minimize emissions in accordance with Sec.  63.1623(f), including 
actions taken to correct a malfunction.
    (e) 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 the results of the performance test in the method 
specified by paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section. The results of 
the performance test must contain the information listed in paragraph 
(e)(2) of this section.
    (1)(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (as defined in Sec.  63.2) required by this subpart, you must 
submit the results of the performance tests, including any associated 
fuel analyses, following the procedure specified in either paragraph 
(e)(1)(i)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site 
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html), you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). CEDRI can be accessed 
through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (http://cdx.epa.gov/epa_home.asp). Performance test data must be submitted in a file format 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may 
submit performance test data in an electronic file format consistent 
with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's 
ERT Web site once the XML schema is available. If you claim that some 
of the performance test information being submitted is confidential 
business information (CBI), you must submit a complete file generated 
through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file 
consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash 
drive, or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/
OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy 
Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or 
alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via 
the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph (e)(1)(i)(A).
    (B) For data collected using test methods that are not supported by 
the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (ii) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.  63.2), you must submit the 
results of the performance evaluation following the procedure specified 
in either paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (A) For performance evaluations of continuous monitoring systems 
measuring relative accuracy test audit (RATA) pollutants that are 
supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you 
must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via 
the CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's CDX.) Performance 
evaluation data must be submitted in a file format generated through 
the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you may submit performance 
evaluation data in an electronic file format consistent with the XML 
schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, once the XML schema is 
available. If you claim that some of the performance evaluation 
information being transmitted is CBI, you must submit a complete file 
generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternative electronic 
file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, 
including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disk, flash drive 
or other commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The 
electronic storage media must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to 
U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement 
Policy Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 
ERT file or alternate file with the CBI omitted must be submitted to 
the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described earlier in this paragraph 
(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    (B) For any performance evaluations of continuous monitoring 
systems measuring RATA pollutants that are not supported by the EPA's 
ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT Web site, you must submit the results of 
the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  63.13.
    (2) The results of a performance test shall include the purpose of 
the test; a brief process description; a complete unit description, 
including a description of feed streams and control devices; sampling 
site description; pollutants measured; description of sampling and 
analysis procedures and any modifications to standard procedures; 
quality assurance procedures; record of operating conditions, including 
operating parameters for which limits are being set, during the test; 
record of preparation of standards; record of calibrations; raw data 
sheets for field sampling; raw data sheets for field and laboratory 
analyses; chain-of-custody documentation; explanation of laboratory 
data qualifiers; example calculations of all applicable stack gas 
parameters, emission rates, percent reduction rates and analytical 
results, as applicable; and any other information required by the test 
method, a relevant standard, or the Administrator.

Sec.  63.1629  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

[[Page 37399]]

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 (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.

0
4. Section 63.1650 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (e)(2).
    The revisions 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) * * *
    (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.

0
5. 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.

0
6. Section 63.1656 is amended by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(6);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(7) and (e)(1); and
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(2)(ii).
    The addition and revisions 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.
    (b) * * *
    (7) Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
opacity. ASTM D7520-13, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere'' may be used 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  63.14) with the following 
conditions:
    (i) During the digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) 
certification procedure outlined in Section 9.2 of ASTM D7520-13, the 
owner or operator 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) The owner or operator 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 D7520-13.
    (iii) The owner or operator must follow the recordkeeping 
procedures outlined in Sec.  63.10(b)(1) for the DCOT certification, 
compliance report, data sheets and all raw unaltered JPEGs used for 
opacity and certification determination.
    (iv) The owner or operator 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 D7520-13 and 
these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (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 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).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 63.1657 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(6), (b)(3), 
and (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).

0
8. Section 63.1659 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  63.1659  Reporting requirements.

    (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

[[Page 37400]]

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.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 63.1660 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii); and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1660  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (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;
* * * * *

0
10. Add Table 1 to the end of subpart XXX to read as follows:

 Table 1--to Subpart XXX of Part 63--General Provisions Applicability to
                               Subpart XXX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to
           Reference               subpart XXX            Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.2...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.3...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.4...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.5...................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(a), (b), (c)......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(d)................  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1623(g) and
                                                    63.1652(f) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(ii).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)(iii)........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(e)(2).............  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.6(e)(3).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(1).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3).........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(g)................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(1).............  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(h)(2)-(9).........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(i)................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.6(j)................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.7(a)-(d)............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.7(e)(1).............  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1625(a)(5) and
                                                    63.1656(a)(6).
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)-(4).........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.7(f), (g), (h)......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(a)-(b)............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i)..........  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1623(g) and
                                                    63.1652(f) for
                                                    general duty
                                                    requirement.
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii).........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(d)(2)......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.8(d)(3).............  Yes, except for    SSM plans are not
                                 last sentence.     required.
Sec.   63.8(e)-(g)............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.                            Yes..............  .....................
 63.9(a),(b),(c),(e),(g),(h)(1
 ) through (3), (h)(5) and
 (6), (i) and (j).
Sec.   63.9(f)................  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.9(h)(4).............  No...............  Section reserved.
Sec.   63.10(a)...............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)............  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i).........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(ii)........  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1628 and 63.1660
                                                    for recordkeeping of
                                                    (1) occurrence and
                                                    duration and (2)
                                                    actions taken during
                                                    malfunction.
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iii).......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)....  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(xiv)..  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10)(b)(3)...........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(9)........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(10)-(11)......  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1628 and 63.1660
                                                    for malfunction
                                                    recordkeeping
                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(c)(12)-(14)......  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(c)(15)...........  No...............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)-(4)........  Yes..............  .....................
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)............  No...............  See Sec.  Sec.
                                                    63.1628(d)(8) and
                                                    63.1659(a)(4) for
                                                    malfunction
                                                    reporting
                                                    requirements.
Sec.   63.10(e)-(f)...........  Yes..............  .....................

[[Page 37401]]

 
Sec.   63.11..................  No...............  Flares will not be
                                                    used to comply with
                                                    the emission limits.
Sec.  Sec.   63.12-63.15......  Yes..............  .....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-15038 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P