Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces Constructed After October 21, 1974, and On or Before August 17, 1983; and Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983
Posted Date: 2002-10-16T04:00Z

Wednesday,

October
16,
2002
Part
IV
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
60
Standards
of
Performance
for
Steel
Plants:
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
Constructed
After
October
21,
1974,
and
On
or
Before
August
17,
1983;
and
Standards
of
Performance
for
Steel
Plants:
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
and
Argon­
Oxygen
Decarburization
Vessels
Constructed
After
August
17,
1983;
Proposed
Rule
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64014
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
60
[AD–
FRL–
7394–
3]

RIN
2060–
AJ68
Standards
of
Performance
for
Steel
Plants:
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
Constructed
After
October
21,
1974,
and
On
or
Before
August
17,
1983;
and
Standards
of
Performance
for
Steel
Plants:
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
and
Argon­
Oxygen
Decarburization
Vessels
Constructed
After
August
17,
1983
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
amendments.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
proposing
to
amend
certain
provisions
in
the
new
source
performance
standards
(NSPS)
for
electric
arc
furnaces
(EAF)
constructed
after
October
21,
1974,
and
on
or
before
August
17,
1983,
and
the
NSPS
for
EAF
constructed
after
August
17,
1983.
The
proposed
changes
add
alternative
requirements
for
monitoring
emissions
from
EAF
exhausts.
In
addition,
minor
editorial
corrections
are
being
made.

DATES:
Comments.
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
December
16,
2002.
Public
Hearing.
If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
November
5,
2002,
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
November
15,
2002.

ADDRESSES:
Comments.
By
U.
S.
Postal
Service,
send
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(6102),
Attention
Docket
Number
A–
79–
33,
U.
S.
EPA,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
In
person
or
by
courier,
deliver
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(6102),
Attention
Docket
Number
A–
79–
33,
U.
S.
EPA,
Room
Number
M1500,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Effective
August
27,
2002,
send
comments
(in
duplicate
if
possible)
to:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
and
Information
Center
(6102T),
Attention
Docket
Number
A–
79–
33,
U.
S.
EPA,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
Number
B108,
Washington,
DC
20460.
We
request
that
a
separate
copy
of
each
public
comment
be
sent
to
the
contact
person
listed
below
(see
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public
Hearing.
If
a
public
hearing
is
held,
it
will
be
held
at
the
new
EPA
facility
complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC.
Docket.
Docket
No.
A–
79–
33
contains
supporting
information
used
in
developing
the
standards.
The
docket
is
located
at
the
U.
S.
EPA,
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460
in
Room
M–
1500,
Waterside
Mall
(ground
floor),
and
may
be
inspected
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
Effective
August
27,
2002,
the
docket
will
be
located
at:
U.
S.
EPA,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
Number
B108,
Washington,
DC
20460.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Mr.
Kevin
Cavender,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(C439–
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number:
(919)
541–
2364,
electronic
mail
address:
cavender.
kevin@
epa.
gov.
To
request
a
public
hearing,
to
request
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing,
or
to
find
out
if
a
public
hearing
will
be
held,
contact
Ms.
Cassie
Posey,
Metals
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(C439–
02),
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(919)
541–
0069,
electronic
mail
address:
posey.
cassie@
epa.
gov.
For
information
concerning
applicability
and
rule
determinations,
contact
your
State
or
local
permitting
authority
or
the
appropriate
EPA
regional
office
representatives.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Comments.
Comments
and
data
may
be
submitted
by
electronic
mail
(e­
mail)
to:
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov.
Electronic
comments
must
be
submitted
as
an
ASCII
file
to
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters
and
encryption
problems
and
will
also
be
accepted
on
disks
in
WordPerfect
format.
All
comments
and
data
submitted
in
electronic
form
must
note
the
docket
number:
Docket
No.
A–
79–
33.
No
confidential
business
information
(CBI)
should
be
submitted
by
e­
mail.
Electronic
comments
may
be
filed
online
at
many
Federal
Depository
Libraries.
Commenters
wishing
to
submit
proprietary
information
for
consideration
must
clearly
distinguish
such
information
from
other
comments
and
clearly
label
it
as
CBI.
Send
submissions
containing
such
proprietary
information
directly
to
the
following
address,
and
not
to
the
public
docket,
to
ensure
that
proprietary
information
is
not
inadvertently
placed
in
the
docket:
OAQPS
Document
Control
Office
(C404–
02),
Attention:
Mr.
Kevin
Cavender,
Emission
Standards
Division,
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711.
The
EPA
will
disclose
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
extent
allowed
by
the
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
If
no
claim
of
confidentiality
accompanies
a
submission
when
it
is
received
by
the
EPA,
the
information
may
be
made
available
to
the
public
without
further
notice
to
the
commenter.
Public
Hearing.
Persons
interested
in
presenting
oral
testimony
or
inquiring
as
to
whether
a
hearing
is
to
be
held
should
contact
Ms.
Cassie
Posey,
telephone
number:
(919)
541–
0069.
Persons
interested
in
attending
the
public
hearing
must
also
contact
Cassie
Posey
to
verify
the
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing.
The
address,
telephone
number,
and
e­
mail
address
for
Ms.
Posey
are
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
A
public
hearing,
if
held,
will
provide
interested
parties
the
opportunity
to
present
data,
views,
or
arguments
concerning
the
proposed
emission
standards.
Docket.
The
docket
is
an
organized
and
complete
file
of
all
the
information
considered
by
the
EPA
in
rule
development.
The
docket
is
a
dynamic
file
because
material
is
added
throughout
the
rulemaking
process.
The
docketing
system
is
intended
to
allow
members
of
the
public
and
industries
involved
to
readily
identify
and
locate
documents
so
that
they
can
effectively
participate
in
the
rulemaking
process.
Along
with
the
proposed
and
promulgated
standards
and
their
preambles,
the
contents
of
the
docket
will
serve
as
the
record
in
the
case
of
judicial
review.
(See
section
307(
d)(
7)(
A)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(CAA).)
The
regulatory
text
and
other
materials
related
to
the
rulemaking
are
available
for
review
in
the
docket
or
copies
may
be
mailed
on
request
from
the
Air
Docket
by
calling
(202)
260–
7548.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying
docket
materials.
World
Wide
Web
(WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposed
rule
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
proposed
rule
will
be
posted
on
the
TTN's
policy
and
guidance
page
for
newly
proposed
or
promulgated
rules
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
oarpg.
The
TTN
provides
information
and
technology
exchange
in
various
areas
of
air
pollution
control.
If
more
information
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(919)
541–
5384.
Regulated
Entities.
Entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include
steel
manufacturing
facilities
who
operate
electric
arc
furnaces.
Affected
categories
and
entities
include
certain
sources
in
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
20:
27
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64015
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
North
American
Information
Classification
System
code
331111.
This
description
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
To
determine
whether
your
facility
is
regulated
by
this
action,
you
should
examine
the
applicability
criteria
in
the
rule.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
person
listed
in
the
preceding
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
is
an
EAF?
B.
What
are
the
current
NSPS
requirements
for
an
EAF?
C.
Why
are
the
current
NSPS
requirements
being
amended?
D.
What
is
a
bag
leak
detection
system,
and
how
is
it
used
to
monitor
baghouse
performance?
II.
Summary
of
Proposed
Amendment
A.
What
is
the
alternative
monitoring
option
being
proposed?
B.
What
are
the
editorial
corrections
being
made?
III.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
I.
Background
A.
What
Is
an
EAF?

An
EAF
is
a
metallurgical
furnace
used
to
produce
carbon
and
alloy
steels.
The
input
material
to
an
EAF
is
typically
100
percent
scrap
steel.
Cylindrical,
refractory
lined
EAF
are
equipped
with
carbon
electrodes
to
be
raised
or
lowered
through
the
furnace
roof.
With
electrodes
retracted,
the
furnace
roof
can
be
rotated
to
permit
the
charge
of
scrap
steel
by
overhead
crane.
Alloying
agents
and
fluxing
materials
usually
are
added
through
doors
on
the
side
of
the
furnace.
Electric
current
is
passed
between
the
electrodes
and
through
the
scrap,
generating
arcing
and
the
generation
of
enough
heat
to
melt
the
scrap
steel
charge.
After
the
melting
and
refining
periods,
impurities
(in
the
form
of
a
slag)
and
the
refined
steel
are
poured
from
the
furnace.
The
production
of
steel
in
an
EAF
is
a
batch
process.
Cycles,
or
heats,
range
from
about
1
1
Ú2
to
5
hours
to
produce
carbon
steel
and
from
5
to
10
hours
to
produce
alloy
steel.
Scrap
steel
is
charged
to
begin
a
cycle,
and
alloying
agents
and
slag
forming
materials
are
added
for
refining.
Stages
of
each
cycle
normally
are
charging,
melting,
refining
(which
usually
includes
oxygen
blowing),
and
tapping.
All
of
those
operations
generate
particulate
matter
(PM)
emissions.
Emission
control
techniques
involve
an
emission
capture
system
and
a
gas
cleaning
system.
Emission
capture
systems
used
in
the
industry
include
direct
shell
(fourth
hole)
evacuation,
side
draft
hoods,
combination
hoods,
canopy
hoods,
scavenger
ducts,
and
furnace
enclosures.
Direct
shell
evacuation
(DEC)
consists
of
ductwork
attached
to
a
separate
opening,
or
``
fourth
hole'',
in
the
furnace
roof
which
draws
emissions
to
a
gas
cleaner.
The
direct
shell
evacuation
system
works
only
when
the
furnace
is
up­
right
and
the
roof
is
in
place.
The
side
draft
hoods
collect
furnace
offgases
from
around
the
electrode
holes
and
the
work
doors
after
the
gases
leave
the
furnace.
The
combination
hood
incorporates
elements
from
the
side
draft
and
direct
shell
evacuation
systems.
Canopy
hoods
and
scavenger
ducts
are
used
to
address
charging
and
tapping
emissions.
Baghouses
are
typically
used
as
the
gas
cleaning
system.

B.
What
Are
the
Current
NSPS
Requirements
for
an
EAF?
The
NSPS
for
EAF
constructed
after
October
21,
1974,
and
on
or
before
August
17,
1983
(40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
AA)
were
first
promulgated
in
the
Federal
Register
on
September
23,
1975
(40
FR
43850).
The
NSPS
for
EAF
constructed
after
August
17,
1983
(40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
AAa)
were
first
promulgated
in
the
Federal
Register
on
October
31,
1984
(49
FR
43845).
Both
subparts
limit
the
allowable
PM
concentration
in
the
exhaust
of
an
EAF
emission
control
device
to
12
milligrams
per
dry
standard
cubic
meter
(mg/
dscm).
In
addition
to
the
PM
emission
limit,
both
subparts
limit
visible
emissions
from
the
EAF
control
device
to
less
than
3
percent
opacity,
as
determined
by
EPA
Method
9
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
In
both
subparts,
if
the
control
device
is
equipped
with
a
single
stack,
the
owner
or
operator
is
required
to
install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
operate
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(COMS).
The
owner
and
operator
must
report
each
6­
minute
average
COM
reading
of
3
percent
or
greater
as
an
excess
emission.
A
COMS
is
not
required
on
any
modular
or
multiplestack
fabric
filter
if
opacity
readings
are
taken
at
least
once
per
day
during
a
melting
and
refining
period,
in
accordance
with
EPA
Method
9.
The
subparts
also
contain
requirements
for
the
EAF
capture
systems.
However,
those
requirements
are
not
being
amended
by
today's
action.
As
such,
we
do
not
discuss
the
capture
system
requirements
here.

C.
Why
Are
the
Current
NSPS
Requirements
Being
Amended?
Today's
action
is
being
taken
in
response
to
a
petition
to
reopen
the
NSPS
that
we
received
from
the
American
Iron
and
Steel
Institute
(AISI),
the
Specialty
Steel
Industry
of
North
America
(SSINA),
and
the
Steel
Manufacturers
Association
(SMA),
who
jointly
will
be
referred
to
as
``
the
Petitioner.
''
In
their
request
to
reopen
the
EAF
NSPS,
the
Petitioner
argues
that
COMS
are
not
capable
of
accurately
monitoring
opacity
emissions
from
an
EAF
shop
at
the
3
percent
excess
emissions
threshold
level
and
that
the
EAF
NSPS
should
be
amended
to
address
the
technological
shortcomings
associated
with
COMS.
In
making
their
argument,
the
Petitioner
points
to
our
recent
revision
to
the
performance
specification
for
COMS
(PSÐ
1,
65
FR
48914)
in
which
we
acknowledge
that
there
is
potential
for
measurement
error
associated
with
COM
readings.
A
conservative
approach
to
estimating
the
upper
range
of
the
potential
measurement
error
resulted
in
an
estimate
of
approximately
4
percent
opacity.
The
Petitioner
also
points
out
that
the
American
Society
for
Testing
and
Materials
(ASTM)
Standard
for
COMS
(ASTM
D
6216Ð
98),
which
is
incorporated
in
PSÐ
1,
expressly
limits
the
scope
of
the
ASTM
Standard
to
COMS
used
to
monitor
opacity
subject
to
an
opacity
limit
of
10
percent
or
greater
due
to
the
potential
error
associated
with
opacity
measurements.
The
Petitioner
argues
that
COMS
generate
inaccurate
data
which
can
trigger
Federal
and
State
reporting
requirements
and
expose
a
facility
to
potential
liability
even
when
the
facility
is
meeting
the
opacity
standard.
As
pointed
out
above,
owners
and
operators
are
required
by
the
NSPS
to
report
all
6­
minute
average
COMS
readings
above
3
percent
as
periods
of
excess
emissions.
Since
the
potential
COMS
measurement
error
is
high
in
comparison
to
the
3
percent
opacity
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64016
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
standard,
the
Petitioner
believes
that
the
COMS
can
and
do
produce
readings
above
the
3
percent
excess
emissions
threshold
when
the
actual
opacity
is
below
3
percent.
The
Petitioner
points
out
that
the
credible
evidence
revisions
(62
FR
8313,
February
24,
1997)
clarify
our
intent
to
use
COMS
data
as
evidence
of
a
potential
emissions
violation.
Therefore,
the
Petitioner
argues,
COMS
data
falsely
indicating
emissions
above
3
percent
opacity
could
be
used
as
evidence
of
violations
of
the
opacity
standard.
Even
if
the
erroneous
COMS
data
are
eventually
determined
not
to
be
credible,
the
Petitioner
argues,
companies
must
bear
the
burden
and
cost
of
defending
against
such
allegations.
The
revisions
to
PSÐ
1
explained
that
we
did
not
believe
it
was
appropriate
to
limit
the
applicability
of
PSÐ
1
based
on
the
level
of
the
emission
limit
that
would
be
monitored.
Instead
of
limiting
the
applicability
of
PSÐ
1,
we
determined
that
PSÐ
1
should
acknowledge
the
measurement
uncertainty
associated
with
COMS
measurements
below
10
percent
opacity,
and
allow
for
a
consideration
of
the
potential
error
(through
statistical
procedures
or
otherwise)
when
evaluating
compliance
with
opacity
standards
below
10
percent.
We
agree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
provide
an
alternative
monitoring
option
for
EAF
owners
and
operators
who
are
concerned
with
the
accuracy
of
COMS
measurements
at
levels
below
10
percent
opacity.
In
addition,
we
believe
that
bag
leak
detection
systems,
the
alternative
monitoring
option
being
proposed,
are
a
viable
alternative
to
COMS
for
the
purpose
of
monitoring
the
performance
of
baghouses.

D.
What
Is
a
Bag
Leak
Detection
System,
and
How
Is
It
Used
To
Monitor
Baghouse
Performance?
A
bag
leak
detection
system
is
a
device
that
is
used
to
measure
relative
particulate
loadings
in
the
exhaust
of
a
baghouse
on
a
continuous
basis
in
order
to
detect
bag
leaks
and
other
conditions
that
result
in
increases
in
particulate
loadings.
Bag
leak
detection
systems
have
been
developed
based
on
a
number
of
principles
including
triboelectric
effect,
electrodynamic
effect,
and
light
scattering.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
need
to
provide
an
output
in
terms
of
particulate
concentration,
but
must
provide
an
output
that
is
proportionate
to
the
particulate
concentration
such
that
if
particulate
concentrations
increase
the
output
from
the
bag
leak
detection
system
increases.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
identifies
leaks
by
the
resulting
increase
in
particulate
loadings.
A
properly
designed
baghouse
will
control
particulate
emissions
to
very
low
levels
when
in
good
operating
condition.
However,
if
the
baghouse
develops
a
leak,
due
to
a
torn
bag
or
seal,
there
will
be
a
measurable
increase
in
particulate
emissions.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
is
capable
of
quickly
(within
a
few
seconds)
determining
that
an
abnormal
increase
in
particulate
concentrations
has
occurred
and
can
then
trigger
an
alarm
to
alert
the
operator
so
that
the
leak
can
be
stopped
as
soon
as
possible.
Bag
leak
detection
systems
are
capable
of
detecting
small
leaks
while
particulate
emissions
are
well
below
the
levels
that
would
result
in
observable
opacity.
For
that
reason,
we
believe
that
bag
leak
detection
systems
are
well
suited
for
monitoring
the
performance
of
a
baghouse.

II.
Summary
of
Proposed
Amendment
A.
What
Is
the
Alternative
Monitoring
Option
Being
Proposed?

We
are
proposing
bag
leak
detection
coupled
with
a
once
per
day
opacity
observation
as
an
alternative
monitoring
option
to
COMS.
Under
the
proposed
alternative,
a
facility
could
elect
to
install,
calibrate,
maintain,
and
operate
a
bag
leak
detection
system.
Owners
or
operators
would
be
required
to
develop
a
site
specific
monitoring
plan
describing
how
the
system
would
be
selected,
installed,
and
operated,
including
how
the
alarm
levels
would
be
established.
Within
30
minutes
of
an
alarm,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
and
alleviate
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
3
hours.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
maintain
and
operate
their
baghouse
such
that
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detector
does
not
alarm
for
more
than
3
percent
of
the
operating
hours
in
any
6­
month
reporting
period.
The
owner
or
operator
would
also
be
required
to
conduct
an
opacity
observation
at
least
once
per
day
when
the
furnace
is
in
the
melting
or
refining
operation
day,
in
accordance
with
EPA
Method
9.
All
opacity
observations
greater
than
3
percent
opacity
would
be
reported
as
a
violation
of
the
opacity
standard.
In
addition,
if
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
was
not
alarming
during
the
time
the
opacity
was
observed
to
be
greater
than
3
percent,
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
would
have
to
be
lowered
to
a
point
that
an
alarm
would
have
occurred
during
the
observation.
B.
What
Are
the
Editorial
Corrections
Being
Made?
Two
typographical
errors
are
being
corrected
in
the
amendment.
In
40
CFR
60.274(
c)
and
in
40
CFR
60.274a(
c),
the
references
to
paragraphs
(b)(
1)
and
(2)
are
being
corrected
to
refer
to
paragraph
(b).
The
paragraphs
(b)(
1)
and
(2)
of
40
CFR
60.274(
c)
and
40
CFR
60.274a(
c)
were
incorporated
into
paragraph
(b)
during
the
last
revision
to
the
NSPS
(64
FR
10105,
March
2,
1999).
In
40
CFR
60.274a(
b),
the
reference
to
paragraph
(d)
is
being
corrected
to
refer
to
paragraph
(e).
In
addition,
40
CFR
60.274a(
d)
and
40
CFR
60.274a(
e)
are
being
revised
to
clarify
that
owners
and
operators
may
petition
the
Administrator
to
approve
alternatives
to
the
monitoring
requirements
specified
in
40
CFR
60.274a(
b),
as
well
as
alternatives
to
the
monthly
operational
status
inspections
specified
in
40
CFR
60.274a(
d).
This
revision
does
not
change
the
rule
requirements
because
owners
and
operators
are
currently
allowed
to
petition
for
alternative
monitoring
requirements
under
40
CFR
60.13(
i)
of
the
General
Provisions.

III.
Administrative
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
we
must
determine
whether
the
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and,
therefore,
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Executive
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(2)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(3)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs,
or
the
rights
and
obligation
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(4)
Raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.
Pursuant
to
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
none
of
the
listed
criteria
apply
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64017
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
to
the
action.
Consequently,
the
action
was
not
submitted
to
OMB
for
review
under
Executive
Order
12866.

B.
Executive
Order
13132,
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
The
proposed
rule
amendments
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
They
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
None
of
the
affected
facilities
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments,
and
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
rule
amendments
will
not
supercede
State
regulations
that
are
more
stringent.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule
amendments.
In
the
spirit
of
Executive
Order
13132
and
consistent
with
our
policy
to
promote
communications
between
us
and
State
and
local
governments,
we
specifically
solicit
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
amendments
from
State
and
local
officials.

C.
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
us
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.
''
The
proposed
rule
amendments
do
not
have
tribal
implications.
They
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
No
tribal
governments
own
or
operate
an
affected
source.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
rule
amendments.

D.
Executive
Order
13045,
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
we
have
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
we
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
rule
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
that
we
considered.
We
interpret
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5Ð
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
rule.
The
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
they
are
based
on
technology
performance
and
not
on
health
or
safety
risks.
No
children's
risk
analysis
was
performed
because
the
action
only
provides
affected
EAF
owners
and
operators
with
alternative
monitoring
options.
Furthermore,
the
proposed
rule
amendments
have
been
determined
not
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866.

E.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104Ð
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
we
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.
Before
promulgating
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
us
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
us
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
we
establish
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
we
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
our
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.
We
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
The
maximum
total
annual
cost
of
the
proposed
rule
amendments
for
any
year
has
been
estimated
to
be
less
than
$62,000.
Thus,
today's
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
we
have
determined
that
the
proposed
rule
amendments
contain
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
they
contain
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
today's
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

F.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA),
as
Amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1966
(SBREFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.
The
RFA
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
for
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,

VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64018
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
The
proposed
amendments
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
because
the
amendments
only
provide
alternative
compliance
options
designed
to
provide
facilities
with
increased
flexibility.
Therefore,
I
certify
that
the
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

G.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
proposed
rule
amendments
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
We
have
prepared
an
Information
Collection
Request
(ICR)
document
(ICR
No.
1060.11),
and
you
may
obtain
a
copy
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov;
or
by
calling
(202)
566Ð
1672.
You
may
also
download
a
copy
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
effective
until
OMB
approves
them.
The
information
requirements
are
based
on
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
NSPS
General
Provisions
(40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
A),
which
are
mandatory
for
all
operators
subject
to
NSPS.
The
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
us
pursuant
to
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
our
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.
The
annual
increase
to
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
burden
for
the
proposed
rule
amendments
are
estimated
at
1750
labor
hours
at
a
total
cost
of
$61,267
nationwide,
and
the
annual
average
increase
in
burden
is
175
labor
hours
and
$6,127
per
source.
We
estimate
that
there
will
be
no
increase
in
the
annualized
capital
costs
due
to
the
proposed
rule
amendments.
We
estimate
that
the
annualized
costs
associated
with
purchasing
and
installing
a
bag
leak
detection
system
are
equal
to
the
offsetting
annualized
cost
savings
associated
with
the
discontinued
use
and
periodic
replacement
of
a
COMS.
In
making
the
estimates,
it
was
assumed
that
ten
existing
facilities
currently
required
to
install
and
operate
COMS
would
elect
to
use
the
proposed
alternative
monitoring
option.
The
cost
estimates
reflect
increased
costs
associated
with
the
installation
and
operation
of
a
bag
leak
detection
system
and
with
daily
opacity
observations
partially
offset
by
the
cost
savings
from
no
longer
having
to
operate
and
maintain
a
COMS.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to:
Review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
our
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.
Comments
are
requested
on
our
need
for
the
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques.
Send
comments
on
the
ICR
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
EPA
(2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20503;
marked
``
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
''
Include
the
ICR
number
in
any
correspondence.
Since
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
October
16,
2002,
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
November
15,
2002.
The
final
action
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
this
proposal.

H.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(NTTAA)
Public
Law
104Ð
113
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note)
directs
us
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
our
regulatory
and
procurement
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
us
to
provide
Congress,
through
annual
reports
to
OMB,
with
explanations
when
an
agency
does
not
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
The
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
a
technical
standard.

I.
Executive
Order
13211,
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution
or
Use
The
proposed
rule
amendments
are
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211
(66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Administrative
practice
and
procedure,
Air
pollution
control,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
October
9,
2002.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.
For
the
reasons
set
out
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
60—[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
60
continues
to
read
as
follows:

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

2.
Section
60.271
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraphs
(o)
and
(p)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.271
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*
(o)
Bag
Leak
detection
system
means
a
system
that
is
capable
of
continuously
monitoring
relative
particulate
matter
(dust)
loadings
in
the
exhaust
of
a
baghouse
to
detect
bag
leaks
and
other
conditions
that
result
in
increases
in
particulate
loadings.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
an
instrument
that
operates
on
triboelectric,
electrodynamic,
light
scattering,
light
transmittance,
or
other
effect
to
continuously
monitor
relative
particulate
matter
loadings.
(p)
Operating
time
means
the
period
of
time
in
hours
that
an
affected
source
is
in
operation
beginning
at
a
startup
and
ending
at
the
next
shutdown.

VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
20:
27
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64019
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
3.
Section
60.273
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(c)
and
adding
new
paragraphs
(e),
(f),
(g),
and
(h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.273
Emission
monitoring.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
A
continuous
monitoring
system
for
the
measurement
of
the
opacity
of
emissions
discharged
into
the
atmosphere
from
the
control
device(
s)
is
not
required
on
any
modular,
multistack
negative­
pressure
or
positivepressure
fabric
filter
if
observations
of
the
opacity
of
the
visible
emissions
from
the
control
device
are
performed
by
a
certified
visible
emission
observer;
or
on
any
single­
stack
fabric
filter
if
visible
emissions
from
the
control
device
are
performed
by
a
certified
visible
emission
observer
and
the
owner
installs
and
continuously
operates
a
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section.
Visible
emission
observations
shall
be
conducted
at
least
once
per
day
for
at
least
three
6­
minute
periods
when
the
furnace
is
operating
in
the
melting
and
refining
period.
All
visible
emissions
observations
shall
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
Method
9
of
appendix
A
to
this
part.
If
visible
emissions
occur
from
more
than
one
point,
the
opacity
shall
be
recorded
for
any
points
where
visible
emissions
are
observed.
Where
it
is
possible
to
determine
that
a
number
of
visible
emission
sites
relate
to
only
one
incident
of
the
visible
emission,
only
one
set
of
three
6­
minute
observations
will
be
required.
In
that
case,
the
Method
9
observations
must
be
made
for
the
site
of
highest
opacity
that
directly
relates
to
the
cause
(or
location)
of
visible
emissions
observed
during
a
single
incident.
Records
shall
be
maintained
of
any
6­
minute
average
that
is
in
excess
of
the
emission
limit
specified
in
§
60.272(
a).
*
*
*
*
*
(e)
A
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
installed
and
continuously
operated
on
all
single­
stack
fabric
filters
if
the
owner
or
operator
elects
not
to
install
and
operate
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
as
provided
for
under
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
meet
the
visible
emissions
observation
requirements
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section.
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
meet
the
specifications
and
requirements
of
paragraphs
(e)(
1)
through
(8)
of
this
section.
(1)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
particulate
matter
emissions
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
(2)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
sensor
must
provide
output
of
relative
particulate
matter
loadings
and
the
owner
or
operator
shall
continuously
record
the
output
from
the
bag
leak
detection
system
using
electronic
or
other
means
(e.
g.,
using
a
strip
chart
recorder
or
a
data
logger.)
(3)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
system
that
will
sound
when
an
increase
in
relative
particulate
loading
is
detected
over
the
alarm
set
point
established
according
to
paragraph
(e)(
4)
of
this
section,
and
the
alarm
must
be
located
such
that
it
can
be
heard
by
the
appropriate
plant
personnel.
(4)
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
required
by
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
develop
and
submit,
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority,
for
approval,
a
sitespecific
monitoring
plan
that
addresses
the
items
identified
in
paragraphs
(e)(
4)(
i)
through
(v)
of
this
section.
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
that
operates
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect,
the
monitoring
plan
shall
be
consistent
with
the
recommendations
contained
in
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
guidance
document
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance''
(EPAÐ
454/
RÐ
98Ð
015).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
operate
and
maintain
the
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
at
all
times.
The
plan
shall
describe:
(i)
Installation
of
the
bag
leak
detector
system;
(ii)
Initial
and
periodic
adjustment
of
the
bag
leak
detector
system
including
how
the
alarm
set­
point
will
be
established;
(iii)
Operation
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
including
quality
assurance
procedures;
(iv)
How
the
bag
leak
detection
system
will
be
maintained
including
a
routine
maintenance
schedule
and
spare
parts
inventory
list;
and
(v)
How
the
bag
leak
detection
system
output
shall
be
recorded
and
stored.
(5)
The
initial
adjustment
of
the
system
shall,
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
(if
applicable).
(6)
Following
initial
adjustment,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
not
adjust
the
averaging
period,
alarm
set
point,
or
alarm
delay
time
without
approval
from
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
except
as
provided
for
in
paragraphs
(e)(
6)(
i)
and
(ii)
of
this
section.
(i)
Once
per
quarter,
the
owner
or
operator
may
adjust
the
sensitivity
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
to
account
for
seasonal
effects
including
temperature
and
humidity
according
to
the
procedures
identified
in
the
sitespecific
monitoring
plan
required
under
paragraph
(e)(
4)
of
this
section.
(ii)
If
opacities
greater
than
zero
percent
are
observed
over
four
consecutive
15­
second
observations
during
the
daily
opacity
observations
required
under
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section
and
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
sound,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
lower
the
alarm
set
point
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
to
a
point
where
the
alarm
would
have
sounded
during
the
period
when
the
opacity
observations
were
made.
(7)
For
negative
pressure,
induced
air
baghouses,
and
positive
pressure
baghouses
that
are
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
through
a
stack,
the
bag
leak
detector
sensor
must
be
installed
downstream
of
the
baghouse
and
upstream
of
any
wet
scrubber.
(8)
Where
multiple
detectors
are
required,
the
system's
instrumentation
and
alarm
may
be
shared
among
detectors.
(f)
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
installed
according
to
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
all
alarms
within
30
minutes
of
an
alarm.
The
cause
of
the
alarm
must
be
alleviated
within
3
hours
of
the
time
the
alarm
occurred
by
taking
whatever
corrective
action(
s)
are
necessary.
If
additional
time
is
required
to
alleviate
the
cause
of
the
alarm,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
notify
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority.
Corrective
actions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
the
following:
(1)
Inspecting
the
baghouse
for
air
leaks,
torn
or
broken
bags
or
filter
media,
or
any
other
condition
that
may
cause
an
increase
in
particulate
emissions;
(2)
Sealing
off
defective
bags
or
filter
media;
(3)
Replacing
defective
bags
or
filter
media,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
control
device;
(4)
Sealing
off
a
defective
baghouse
compartment;
(5)
Cleaning
the
bag
leak
detection
system
probe,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
bag
leak
detection
system;
or
(6)
Shutting
down
the
process
producing
the
particulate
emissions.
(g)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
maintain
each
baghouse
monitored
by
a
bag
leak
detection
system
such
that
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
sound
for
more
than
3
percent
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64020
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
of
the
total
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
reporting
period.
(h)
The
percentage
of
time
the
alarm
on
a
bag
leak
detection
system
sounds
shall
be
determined
according
to
paragraphs
(h)(
1)
through
(5)
of
this
section.
(1)
An
alarm
that
occurs
due
solely
to
a
malfunction
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
shall
not
be
included
in
the
calculation.
(2)
An
alarm
that
occurs
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
shall
not
be
included
in
the
calculation
if
the
owner
or
operator
follows
all
requirements
contained
in
§
60.11(
d).
(3)
For
each
alarm
where
the
owner
or
operator
initiates
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
an
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
1
hour
of
alarm
time
shall
be
counted.
(4)
For
each
alarm
where
the
owner
or
operator
does
not
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
alarm
time
will
be
counted
as
the
actual
amount
of
time
taken
by
the
owner
or
operator
to
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm.
(5)
The
percentage
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounds
shall
be
calculated
as
the
ratio
of
the
sum
of
alarm
times
to
the
total
operating
time
multiplied
by
100.
4.
Section
60.274
is
amended
by
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(c)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.274
Monitoring
of
operations.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
When
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
facility
is
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
under
§
60.272(
a)(
3)
and
at
any
other
time
the
Administrator
may
require
that
(under
section
114
of
the
CAA,
as
amended)
either:
the
control
system
fan
motor
amperes
and
all
damper
positions;
the
volumetric
flow
rate
through
each
separately
ducted
hood;
or
the
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
control
device
inlet
and
all
damper
positions
shall
be
determined
during
all
periods
in
which
a
hood
is
operated
for
the
purpose
of
capturing
emissions
from
the
affected
facility
subject
to
paragraph
(b)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
5.
Section
60.275
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.275
Test
methods
and
procedures.

*
*
*
*
*
(i)
If
visible
emissions
observations
are
made
in
lieu
of
using
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system,
as
allowed
for
by
§
60.273(
c),
visible
emission
observations
shall
be
conducted
at
least
once
per
day
for
at
least
three
6­
minute
periods
when
the
furnace
is
operating
in
the
melting
and
refining
period.
All
visible
emissions
observations
shall
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
Method
9.
If
visible
emissions
occur
from
more
than
one
point,
the
opacity
shall
be
recorded
for
any
points
where
visible
emissions
are
observed.
Where
it
is
possible
to
determine
that
a
number
of
visible
emission
sites
relate
to
only
one
incident
of
the
visible
emission,
only
one
set
of
three
6­
minute
observations
will
be
required.
In
that
case,
the
Method
9
observations
must
be
made
for
the
site
of
highest
opacity
that
directly
relates
to
the
cause
(or
location)
of
visible
emissions
observed
during
a
single
incident.
Records
shall
be
maintained
of
any
6­
minute
average
that
is
in
excess
of
the
emission
limit
specified
in
§
60.272(
a).
*
*
*
*
*
6.
Section
60.276
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraphs
(e)
and
(f)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.276
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(e)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
maintain
the
following
records
for
each
bag
leak
detection
system
required
under
§
60.273(
e):
(1)
Records
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
output;
(2)
Records
of
bag
leak
detection
system
adjustments,
including
the
date
and
time
of
the
adjustment,
the
initial
bag
leak
detector
settings,
and
the
final
bag
leak
detector
settings;
(3)
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,
if
procedures
were
initiated
within
30
minutes
of
the
alarm,
the
cause
of
the
alarm,
an
explanation
of
the
actions
taken,
the
date
and
time
the
cause
of
the
alarm
was
alleviated,
and
if
the
alarm
was
alleviated
within
3
hours
of
the
alarm;
and
(4)
The
calculation
of
the
percent
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounded
during
each
6­
month
reporting
period.
(f)
In
addition
to
the
information
required
by
§
60.7(
c),
the
percent
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounded
during
each
6­
month
reporting
period
shall
be
reported
to
the
Administrator
semi­
annually.
7.
Section
60.271(
a)
is
amended
by
adding,
in
alphabetical
order,
definitions
for
``
Bag
leak
detection
system''
and
``
Operating
time''
as
follows:
§
60.271a
Definitions.

Bag
leak
detection
system
means
a
system
that
is
capable
of
continuously
monitoring
relative
particulate
matter
(dust)
loadings
in
the
exhaust
of
a
baghouse
to
detect
bag
leaks
and
other
conditions
that
result
in
increases
in
particulate
loadings.
A
bag
leak
detection
system
includes,
but
is
not
limited
to,
an
instrument
that
operates
on
triboelectric,
electrodynamic,
light
scattering,
light
transmittance,
or
other
effect
to
continuously
monitor
relative
particulate
matter
loadings.
*
*
*
*
*
Operating
time
means
the
period
of
time
in
hours
that
an
affected
source
is
in
operation
beginning
at
a
startup
and
ending
at
the
next
shutdown.
*
*
*
*
*
8.
Section
60.273a
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(c)
and
adding
new
paragraphs
(e),
(f),
(g),
and
(h)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.273a
Emission
monitoring.

*
*
*
*
*
(c)
A
continuous
monitoring
system
for
the
measurement
of
the
opacity
of
emissions
discharged
into
the
atmosphere
from
the
control
device(
s)
is
not
required
on
any
modular,
multistack
negative­
pressure
or
positivepressure
fabric
filter
if
observations
of
the
opacity
of
the
visible
emissions
from
the
control
device
are
performed
by
a
certified
visible
emission
observer;
or
on
any
single­
stack
fabric
filter
if
visible
emissions
from
the
control
device
are
performed
by
a
certified
visible
emission
observer
and
the
owner
installs
and
continuously
operates
a
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section.
Visible
emission
observations
shall
be
conducted
at
least
once
per
day
for
at
least
three
6­
minute
periods
when
the
furnace
is
operating
in
the
melting
and
refining
period.
All
visible
emissions
observations
shall
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
Method
9.
If
visible
emissions
occur
from
more
than
one
point,
the
opacity
shall
be
recorded
for
any
points
where
visible
emissions
are
observed.
Where
it
is
possible
to
determine
that
a
number
of
visible
emission
sites
relate
to
only
one
incident
of
the
visible
emission,
only
one
set
of
three
6­
minute
observations
will
be
required.
In
that
case,
the
Method
9
observations
must
be
made
for
the
site
of
highest
opacity
that
directly
relates
to
the
cause
(or
location)
of
visible
emissions
observed
during
a
single
incident.
Records
shall
be
maintained
of
any
6­
minute
average
that
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64021
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
is
in
excess
of
the
emission
limit
specified
in
§
60.272a(
a).
*
*
*
*
*
(e)
A
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
installed
and
continuously
operated
on
all
single­
stack
fabric
filters
if
the
owner
or
operator
elects
not
to
install
and
operate
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
as
provided
for
under
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section.
In
addition,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
meet
the
visible
emissions
observation
requirements
in
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section.
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
meet
the
specifications
and
requirements
of
paragraphs
(e)(
1)
through
(8)
of
this
section.
(1)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
particulate
matter
emissions
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less.
(2)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
sensor
must
provide
output
of
relative
particulate
matter
loadings
and
the
owner
or
operator
shall
continuously
record
the
output
from
the
bag
leak
detection
system
using
electronic
or
other
means
(e.
g.,
using
a
strip
chart
recorder
or
a
data
logger.)
(3)
The
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
system
that
will
sound
when
an
increase
in
relative
particulate
loading
is
detected
over
the
alarm
set
point
established
according
to
paragraph
(e)(
4)
of
this
section,
and
the
alarm
must
be
located
such
that
it
can
be
heard
by
the
appropriate
plant
personnel.
(4)
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
required
by
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
develop
and
submit,
to
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority,
for
approval,
a
sitespecific
monitoring
plan
that
addresses
the
items
identified
in
paragraphs
(e)(
4)(
i)
through
(v)
of
this
section.
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
that
operates
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect,
the
monitoring
plan
shall
be
consistent
with
the
recommendations
contained
in
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
guidance
document
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance''
(EPAÐ
454/
RÐ
98Ð
015).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
operate
and
maintain
the
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
at
all
times.
The
plan
shall
describe
the
following:
(i)
Installation
of
the
bag
leak
detector
system;
(ii)
Initial
and
periodic
adjustment
of
the
bag
leak
detector
system
including
how
the
alarm
set­
point
will
be
established;
(iii)
Operation
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
including
quality
assurance
procedures;
(iv)
How
the
bag
leak
detection
system
will
be
maintained
including
a
routine
maintenance
schedule
and
spare
parts
inventory
list;
and
(v)
How
the
bag
leak
detection
system
output
shall
be
recorded
and
stored.
(5)
The
initial
adjustment
of
the
system
shall,
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
(if
applicable).
(6)
Following
initial
adjustment,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
not
adjust
the
averaging
period,
alarm
set
point,
or
alarm
delay
time
without
approval
from
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority
except
as
provided
for
in
paragraphs
(e)(
6)(
i)
and
(ii)
of
this
section.
(i)
Once
per
quarter,
the
owner
or
operator
may
adjust
the
sensitivity
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
to
account
for
seasonal
effects
including
temperature
and
humidity
according
to
the
procedures
identified
in
the
sitespecific
monitoring
plan
required
under
paragraph
(e)(
4)
of
this
section.
(ii)
If
opacities
greater
than
zero
percent
are
observed
over
four
consecutive
15­
second
observations
during
the
daily
opacity
observations
required
under
paragraph
(c)
of
this
section
and
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
sound,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
lower
the
alarm
set
point
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
to
a
point
where
the
alarm
would
have
sounded
during
the
period
when
the
opacity
observations
were
made.
(7)
For
negative
pressure,
induced
air
baghouses,
and
positive
pressure
baghouses
that
are
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
through
a
stack,
the
bag
leak
detector
sensor
must
be
installed
downstream
of
the
baghouse
and
upstream
of
any
wet
scrubber.
(8)
Where
multiple
detectors
are
required,
the
system's
instrumentation
and
alarm
may
be
shared
among
detectors.
(f)
For
each
bag
leak
detection
system
installed
according
to
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
all
alarms
within
30
minutes
of
an
alarm.
The
cause
of
the
alarm
must
be
alleviated
within
3
hours
of
the
time
the
alarm
occurred
by
taking
whatever
corrective
action(
s)
are
necessary.
If
additional
time
is
required
to
alleviate
the
cause
of
the
alarm,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
notify
the
Administrator
or
delegated
authority.
Corrective
actions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
the
following:
(1)
Inspecting
the
baghouse
for
air
leaks,
torn
or
broken
bags
or
filter
media,
or
any
other
condition
that
may
cause
an
increase
in
particulate
emissions;
(2)
Sealing
off
defective
bags
or
filter
media.
(3)
Replacing
defective
bags
or
filter
media,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
control
device;
(4)
Sealing
off
a
defective
baghouse
compartment.
(5)
Cleaning
the
bag
leak
detection
system
probe,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
bag
leak
detection
system;
and
(6)
Shutting
down
the
process
producing
the
particulate
emissions.
(g)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
maintain
each
baghouse
monitored
by
a
bag
leak
detection
system
such
that
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
does
not
sound
for
more
than
3
percent
of
the
total
operating
time
in
a
6­
month
reporting
period.
(h)
The
percentage
of
time
the
alarm
on
a
bag
leak
detection
system
sounds
shall
be
determined
according
to
paragraphs
(h)(
1)
through
(5)
of
this
section.
(1)
An
alarm
that
occurs
due
solely
to
a
malfunction
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
shall
not
be
included
in
the
calculation.
(2)
An
alarm
that
occurs
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
shall
not
be
included
in
the
calculation
if
the
owner
or
operator
follows
all
requirements
contained
in
§
60.11(
d).
(3)
For
each
alarm
where
the
owner
or
operator
initiates
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
an
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
1
hour
of
alarm
time
shall
be
counted.
(4)
For
each
alarm
where
the
owner
or
operator
does
not
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
alarm
time
will
be
counted
as
the
actual
amount
of
time
taken
by
the
owner
or
operator
to
initiate
procedures
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm.
(5)
The
percentage
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounds
shall
be
calculated
as
the
ratio
of
the
sum
of
alarm
times
to
the
total
operating
time
multiplied
by
100.
9.
Section
60.274a
is
amended
by
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(b),
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(c),
revising
the
first
sentence
of
paragraph
(d),
and
revising
paragraph
(e)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.274a
Monitoring
of
operations.

*
*
*
*
*
(b)
Except
as
provided
under
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3
64022
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
200
/
Wednesday,
October
16,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
or
operator
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
subpart
shall
check
and
record
on
a
once­
per­
shift
basis
the
furnace
static
pressure
(if
DEC
system
is
in
use,
and
a
furnace
static
pressure
gauge
is
installed
according
to
paragraph
(f)
of
this
section)
and
either:
check
and
record
the
control
system
fan
motor
amperes
and
damper
position
on
a
onceper
shift
basis;
install
calibrate,
and
maintain
a
monitoring
device
that
continuously
records
the
volumetric
flow
rate
through
each
separately
ducted
hood;
or
install,
calibrate,
and
maintain
a
monitoring
device
that
continuously
records
the
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
control
device
inlet
and
check
and
record
damper
positions
on
a
once­
per­
shift
basis.
*
*
*
(c)
When
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
affected
facility
is
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
standards
under
§
60.272a(
a)(
3)
and
at
any
other
time
the
Administrator
may
require
that
(under
section
114
of
the
CAA,
as
amended)
either:
the
control
system
fan
motor
amperes
and
all
damper
positions;
the
volumetric
flow
rate
through
each
separately
ducted
hood;
or
the
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
control
device
inlet
and
all
damper
positions
shall
be
determined
during
all
periods
in
which
a
hood
is
operated
for
the
purpose
of
capturing
emissions
from
the
affected
facility
subject
to
paragraph
(b)
of
this
section.
*
*
*
(d)
Except
as
provided
under
paragraph
(e)
of
this
section,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
perform
monthly
operational
status
inspections
of
the
equipment
that
is
important
to
the
performance
of
the
total
capture
system
(i.
e.,
pressure
sensors,
dampers,
and
damper
switches).
*
*
*
(e)
The
owner
or
operator
may
petition
the
Administrator
to
approve
any
alternative
to
either
the
monitoring
requirements
specified
in
paragraph
(b)
of
this
section
or
the
monthly
operational
status
inspections
specified
in
paragraph
(d)
of
this
section
if
the
alternative
will
provide
a
continuous
record
of
operation
of
each
emission
capture
system.
*
*
*
*
*
10.
Section
60.276a
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraphs
(h)
and
(i)
to
read
as
follows:

§
60.276a
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*
(h)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
maintain
the
following
records
for
each
bag
leak
detection
system
required
under
§
60.273a(
e):
(1)
Records
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
output;
(2)
Records
of
bag
leak
detection
system
adjustments,
including
the
date
and
time
of
the
adjustment,
the
initial
bag
leak
detector
settings,
and
the
final
bag
leak
detector
settings;
(3)
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,
if
procedures
were
initiated
within
30
minutes
of
the
alarm,
the
cause
of
the
alarm,
an
explanation
of
the
actions
taken,
the
date
and
time
the
cause
of
the
alarm
was
alleviated,
and
if
the
alarm
was
alleviated
within
3
hours
of
the
alarm;
and
(4)
The
calculation
of
the
percent
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounded
during
each
6­
month
reporting
period.
(i)
In
addition
to
the
information
required
by
§
60.7(
c),
the
percent
of
time
the
alarm
on
the
bag
leak
detection
system
sounded
during
each
6­
month
reporting
period
shall
be
reported
to
the
Administrator
semi­
annually.

[FR
Doc.
02Ð
26303
Filed
10Ð
15Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
VerDate
0ct<
02>
2002
17:
28
Oct
15,
2002
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
16OCP3.
SGM
16OCP3