Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0338
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Ferroalloys Production
Posted Date: 2017-01-18T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5401-5409]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00156]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895; 9958-01-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS90

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Ferroalloys Production

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; notice of final action on reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This action sets forth the Environmental Protection Agency's 
(EPA's) final decision on the issues for which it announced 
reconsideration on July 12, 2016, that pertain to certain aspects of 
the June 30, 2015, final amendments for the Ferroalloys Production 
source category regulated under national emission standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP). The EPA is amending the rule to 
allow existing facilities with positive pressure baghouses to perform 
visible emissions monitoring twice daily as an alternative to 
installing and operating bag leak detection systems (BLDS) to ensure 
the baghouses are operating properly. In addition, this final action 
explains that EPA is maintaining the requirement that facilities must 
use a digital camera opacity technique (DCOT) method to demonstrate 
compliance with opacity limits. However, this final action revises the 
rule such that it references the recently updated version of the DCOT 
method. In this action, the EPA also explains that no changes are being 
made regarding the rule provision that requires quarterly polycyclic 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) emission testing for furnaces producing 
ferromanganese (FeMn) with an opportunity for facilities to request 
decreased compliance test frequency from their permitting authority 
after the first year. Furthermore, in this action, the EPA is denying 
the request for reconsideration of the PAH emission limits for both 
FeMn and silicomanganese (SiMn) production furnaces.

DATES: This final action is effective on January 18, 2017. The 
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 18, 
2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID

[[Page 5402]]

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895. All documents are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information 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/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public Reading Room is 
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-5289; fax number: 
(919) 541-3207; email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Organization of this Document. The following 
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background Information
III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered
    A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing Positive Pressure 
Baghouses
    B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration and Revised DCOT Test Method
    C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn
IV. Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of FeMn and SiMn PAH 
Emission Limits
V. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the energy impacts?
    C. What are the compliance costs?
    D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
    E. What are the benefits of the final standards?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (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 (NTTAA) 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              NESHAP and source  category                 NAICS \a\ 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: Ferroalloys 
Production). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this final action to a particular entity, consult either the air 
permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative 
as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 (General Provisions).

B. How do I obtain a copy of this document and other related 
information?

    The docket number for this final action regarding the Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX) is Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0895.
    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this document will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). 
Following signature, a copy of this document will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/ferromanganese-and-silicomanganese-production-national-emission.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under Clean Air Act (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 March 20, 2017. 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 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.

II. Background Information

    The EPA published a final residual risk and technology review (RTR) 
rule for the Ferroalloys Production source category in the Federal 
Register on June 30, 2015 (80 FR 37366), which included, among other 
things, the following:
     Revisions to the emission limits for particulate matter 
(PM) from stacks for the electric arc furnaces, metal oxygen refining 
(MOR) processes, and crushing and screening operations to minimize PM 
emissions from these units;
     Emission limits for four previously unregulated hazardous 
air pollutants

[[Page 5403]]

(HAP): Formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, mercury, and PAH;
     Requirements to capture process fugitive emissions using 
effective, enhanced local capture, and duct the captured emissions to 
control devices;
     An average opacity limit of 8 percent during a full 
furnace cycle and a maximum opacity limit of 20 percent for any two 
consecutive 6-minute periods to ensure effective capture and control of 
process fugitive emissions;
     A requirement to conduct opacity observations using the 
DCOT at least once per week for a full furnace cycle for each operating 
furnace and each MOR operation for at least 26 weeks. After 26 weeks, 
if all tests are compliant, facilities can decrease to monthly opacity 
observations;
     A requirement to use BLDS to monitor PM emissions from all 
furnace baghouses; and
     A requirement to conduct periodic performance testing to 
demonstrate compliance with the stack emission limits for the various 
HAP, including a requirement to conduct PAH performance testing every 3 
months for furnaces producing FeMn with the opportunity to reduce to 
annual testing after the first year.
    Following promulgation of the final rule, the EPA received two 
petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the NESHAP 
pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). The EPA received a petition dated 
August 25, 2015, from Eramet Marietta Inc. (Eramet) and a petition 
dated August 28, 2015, from Felman Production LLC (Felman). In the 
petition submitted by Eramet, the company requested the EPA reconsider 
the following issues: (1) The requirement to conduct PAH performance 
testing every 3 months for furnaces producing FeMn; (2) the requirement 
to demonstrate compliance weekly with shop building opacity limits 
using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) DCOT test 
method; and (3) the PAH emission limits for existing furnaces producing 
FeMn and SiMn. In addition, Eramet requested a stay of 90 days from the 
effective date of the final amendments pending completion of the 
reconsideration proceeding. In the petition submitted by Felman, the 
company stated that it supported and adopted the petition submitted by 
Eramet and requested reconsideration of the requirement to use BLDS to 
monitor emissions from positive pressure baghouses. Copies of the 
petitions are provided in the docket (see EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0895).
    On November 5, 2015, the EPA sent letters to the petitioners 
granting reconsideration of two issues: The PAH testing compliance 
frequency issue raised by Eramet and the use of BLDS on positive 
pressure baghouses raised by Felman. In those letters, the EPA said it 
was still reviewing the other issues and intended to take final action 
on those when it took final action on BLDS and PAH testing frequency. 
The agency also stated in the letters that a proposed Federal Register 
notice would be issued initiating the reconsideration process for the 
issues that the EPA is granting reconsideration. The EPA published the 
proposed notice of reconsideration in the Federal Register on July 12, 
2016 (81 FR 45089).
    In addition to the two requirements mentioned above (i.e., PAH 
testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn and the use of BLDS to 
monitor PM emissions from positive pressure baghouses), the EPA also 
granted reconsideration of a third issue in the reconsideration 
proposal notice (81 FR 45089): the requirement to use DCOT in 
accordance with ASTM D7520-13 to demonstrate compliance with shop 
building opacity standards. However, for each of these three 
requirements, after further analyses, evaluation, and consideration, we 
explained in the reconsideration proposal notice that we continued to 
believe these requirements were appropriate. Therefore, we did not 
propose any changes to these requirements. Instead, we provided further 
discussion and explanation as to why we believed it was appropriate to 
maintain these requirements in the rule, provided additional technical 
information to the record, and requested comment on the three 
requirements for which the EPA granted reconsideration.

III. Summary of Final Action on Issues Reconsidered

    After reviewing and considering all the public comments received in 
response to the reconsideration proposal, the EPA has decided to amend 
the baghouse monitoring requirements to allow existing facilities with 
positive pressure baghouses to perform visible emissions monitoring 
twice daily using Method 22 as an alternative to using BLDS. In 
addition, although EPA is maintaining the requirement to use DCOT to 
demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards, this final action 
amends the references to the ASTM DCOT test method in the opacity 
monitoring requirements to the recently updated version of the method 
(ASTM D7520-16). The EPA is also maintaining the quarterly PAH emission 
testing requirement for furnaces producing FeMn with an opportunity for 
facilities to request decreased compliance test frequency from their 
permitting authority after the first year. Each of these issues is 
discussed in more detail in this section of the preamble.

A. Alternative Monitoring for Existing Positive Pressure Baghouses

    In their petition for reconsideration, one petitioner (Felman) 
objected to the EPA's requirement to use BLDS for positive pressure 
baghouses. The petitioner pointed out that the EPA's own guidance \1\ 
indicates that BLDS are not appropriate for use on a positive pressure 
baghouse, given the different configurations of these types of units. 
The petitioner commented that although the EPA stated that it had 
knowledge of BLDS in operation on positive pressure baghouses, the EPA 
did not provide any specific examples. In addition, the petitioner 
claimed the EPA had not evaluated the costs associated with the 
application of BLDS on positive pressure baghouses but instead simply 
estimated the cost to be comparable with BLDS for negative pressure 
baghouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 
Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance, EPA-454/R-98-015, 
September 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments on the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), 
the petitioner stated that the EPA's supporting documents did not 
provide any examples of BLDS in operation on positive pressure 
baghouses comparable to those used at the petitioner's facility, which 
are low airflow and use natural-draft openings instead of stacks. The 
petitioner provided cost quotes from vendors of $1.1 million to install 
the BLDS and make the necessary structural improvements (including a 
catwalk system) to support the operation of the BLDS.
    In light of the petitioner's assertions, we re-evaluated the BLDS 
requirement for positive pressure baghouses. While we maintain that 
BLDS can be installed and operated on positive pressure baghouses, we 
agree that, due to their particular circumstances, it would be 
difficult to retrofit this facility based on the specific design of 
their positive pressure baghouses. Furthermore, we agree that 
installing BLDS and the associated infrastructure would not be cost 
effective. In our analysis for the proposal, we estimated the capital 
cost of installing BLDS on the three positive pressure baghouses to be 
$269,100, with annualized costs of $219,000. However, we did not 
include any additional costs for structural improvements to support 
BLDS on these baghouses. The petitioner provided a cost estimate of

[[Page 5404]]

$870,000 for structural improvements to install BLDS on their three 
baghouses. Given this additional information, we now estimate the 
capital costs would be about $1.1 million, and annualized costs would 
be $330,000. Because of the structural modifications needed to install 
BLDS, the higher annualized costs and the potential technical issues on 
this particular control configuration at Felman, it would be 
unreasonable to require BLDS as the sole method for monitoring positive 
pressure baghouses in this rule. Nevertheless, we believe the baghouses 
need to be monitored on a regular basis to ensure they are operating as 
intended and that there are no tears or holes in the bags. Therefore, 
we have revised the rule to allow for an alternative monitoring method 
to the BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses used to control 
emissions from an electric arc furnace. We are allowing twice daily 
visual monitoring of the outlet of each furnace baghouse using Method 
22 for evidence of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operations 
as an alternative to BLDS. We believe this revision will reduce the 
cost burden associated with monitoring the positive pressure baghouses 
used to control emissions from the furnaces and avoid possible 
technical issues, but still provide assurance that the baghouses are 
functioning correctly and controlling metal HAP emissions from the 
furnaces. More details are available in the Summary of Public Comments 
and Responses on Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys Production NESHAP 
Final Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.

B. DCOT Compliance Demonstration and Revised DCOT Test Method

    In the June 30, 2015, final rule (80 FR 37366), we finalized 
opacity standards for process fugitive emissions from the furnace 
buildings and required the use of DCOT and the ASTM D7520-13 test 
method to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards. In their 
petitions for reconsideration, Eramet and Felman objected to the use of 
DCOT in lieu of EPA Method 9 and stated that the EPA did not propose 
DCOT as the only method for demonstrating compliance with the opacity 
standards. The petitioners argued that DCOT was an unproven substitute 
for EPA Method 9 to measure opacity from emission sources and that 
variability in plume location and orientation at the ferroalloy 
production buildings would make DCOT infeasible at their facilities. 
The petitioners also noted that the ASTM test method only applies to 
stack openings of 7 feet in diameter or less and that DCOT is only 
provided by one vendor.
    In their comments on the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), 
several commenters objected to the use of DCOT as the sole method for 
opacity compliance and stated that the EPA should allow the option of 
using EPA Method 9. The commenters argue that DCOT is limited to 
stationary point sources and not fugitive emissions, and they pointed 
out that the supporting data for DCOT are all from studies performed on 
stationary point sources and not long, open vent sources such as those 
at the Eramet facility. A few commenters had concerns with the 
timeliness of the opacity determinations and the accuracy of the 
results. The commenters were also concerned that there is currently 
only one vendor of DCOT and that the EPA should not choose vendors for 
an entire industry.
    On the other hand, a few commenters were supportive of the use of 
the DCOT. In the opinion of one commenter, DCOT is comparable to Method 
9 observations, on all shapes, sizes, types of sources, and that DCOT 
is configurable with all types of cameras to tailor the implementation 
at the shop/building level to support cost-effective and efficient 
observations.
    Another commenter explained that strong monitoring, testing and 
compliance measures are an essential part of the emission standards, 
and that the use of these measures also increases the incentive for 
sources to comply with the standards. The commenter states that EPA's 
requirement for DCOT is consistent with and an important way to 
implement EPA's ``next generation compliance.'' The commenter notes 
that the EPA's next generation compliance policy includes, among other 
things, the following: (1) Use and promotion of advanced emissions/
pollutant detection technology so that regulated entities, the 
government, and the public can more easily see pollutant discharges, 
environmental conditions, and noncompliance; (2) expanded transparency 
by making information more accessible to the public; and (3) 
development and use of innovative enforcement approaches (e.g., data 
analytics and targeting) to achieve more widespread compliance.
    Other comments and responses on DCOT can be found in the Summary of 
Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the Ferroalloys 
Production NESHAP Final Rule in the docket for this rulemaking.
    Based on the information provided by the petitioners and the 
commenters, we re-evaluated the DCOT opacity monitoring requirement and 
determined that DCOT is still an appropriate method for determining 
opacity from the shop buildings for this source category.
    As explained in the initial proposal (76 FR 72508), supplemental 
proposal (79 FR 60238), and in the 2015 final rule (80 FR 37366), 
process fugitive emissions from the shop buildings are a significant 
source of risk from the production of ferroalloys. In each of these 
three actions, we concluded risks were unacceptable, largely driven by 
process fugitive emissions of air toxics metals.
    To reduce risks to acceptable levels and protect the public with an 
ample margin of safety, in the initial proposal, we proposed facilities 
would need to install and operate full building enclosures to capture 
and control fugitive emissions. In response to the initial proposal, 
industry commented that full building enclosure requirement would be 
very costly and difficult to implement, and suggested an alternative 
approach using localized capture equipment to reduce fugitive emissions 
from the shop buildings. Modeling of the localized capture approach 
indicated that similar reductions in risk could be achieved, making 
this option more feasible and at significantly lower cost than full 
building enclosure. Based on these modeling results and consideration 
of costs and feasibility, we proposed the localized capture approach to 
significantly reduce fugitive emissions from the shop buildings in the 
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238), and finalized this approach in the 
2015 final rule (80 FR 37366). Specifically, the final rule requires 
facilities to install, maintain and operate a system designed to 
effectively capture and control process fugitive emissions. 
Furthermore, for this rule, opacity standards are the main compliance 
approach to ensure the process fugitive emissions are effectively 
captured and controlled on a continuous basis, and that the public is 
protected with ample margin of safety. Since process fugitive emissions 
were the main contributor to the unacceptable risks at baseline, and 
since opacity is the main tool to ensure these process fugitive 
emissions are effectively captured and controlled and that the public 
is protected with an ample margin of safety, we finalized requirements 
for the use of DCOT to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standard 
in the June 30, 2015, final rule (80 FR 37366).
    The DCOT provides a photographic record of each of the opacity 
readings. In addition, the photographs are evaluated by a third party 
and the opacity is determined by the degree the plume reduces the 
transmitted light and obscures the background. While we

[[Page 5405]]

believe, based on validation studies, that EPA Method 9 and DCOT 
provide comparable opacity results, the DCOT provides better 
documentation, including a permanent re-analyzable photographic record 
of the opacity determinations, which we believe will be beneficial to 
both the industry and the public. There is an advantage of having 
better documentation in this specific case where fugitive emissions are 
driving the risk from the Ferroalloys Production source category. In 
addition, we disagree with the commenters assertion that this 
methodology will not work with this source category. Fugitive emissions 
from this source category are emitted through roof vents at the top of 
the furnace buildings. Currently, the facilities in this source 
category use EPA Method 9 to measure opacity from the roof vents. The 
EPA Method 9 opacity method has procedures and requirements for 
determining opacity from roof vents and rectangular outlets, which are 
the same procedures and requirements used in the DCOT test method (ASTM 
D7520-16). Because the same procedures and requirements are used to 
measure opacity from roof vents from both these methods, we believe 
that opacity can be measured from this source category using the DCOT 
test method. Therefore, we are maintaining the requirement in the final 
rule that facilities in this source category must use the ASTM DCOT 
methodology to demonstrate compliance with the opacity standards and we 
are denying the petitioners' request to allow EPA Method 9 as an 
alternative method for determining compliance. However, we are revising 
the final rule language to replace the ASTM D7520-13 Standard Test 
Method for Determining the Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient 
Atmosphere with the latest revision of the method, ASTM D7520-16. The 
ASTM D7520-13 method was revised by removing the stack diameter scope 
limitation along with editorial corrections in April 2016. We believe 
that this change will address the commenter's concerns specifically 
with the 7 foot stack diameter scope limitation in the ASTM D7520-13 
method because the updated ASTM D7520-16 method has removed that 
limitation. However, fugitive emissions from this source category are 
not emitted from stacks with a diameter greater than 7 feet, but from 
roof vents. Therefore, we do not believe that the 7-foot diameter 
limitation prevented us from requiring the use of the ASTM method for 
measuring opacity using DCOT. As stated earlier in this section, the 
ASTM D7520-16 method provides the same approach for determining opacity 
from nontraditional point sources such as roof vents as would EPA 
Method 9.

C. Quarterly PAH Testing for Furnaces Producing FeMn

    In the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), the EPA also 
reconsidered the requirement for furnaces producing FeMn to conduct PAH 
performance testing every 3 months with an option following the first 
year, to do annual performance testing. The petitioner stated that the 
PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn in the supplemental 
proposal (79 FR 60238) was every 5 years and that the quarterly testing 
requirement was added in the final rule. The petitioner also noted that 
the change in PAH testing frequency represents an increase in 
compliance costs of $75,000 in the first year of implementation and an 
increase of $475,000 in compliance costs over the first 5 years 
(assuming the facility is not granted reduced frequency of testing 
after the first year), in comparison to the supplemental proposal PAH 
testing requirement. The petitioner also argued that if the EPA 
believes that the PAH emissions dataset is inadequate to establish a 
representative and reliable MACT floor, the proper solution is to 
collect additional data pursuant to CAA section 114(a), rather than 
collecting data through compliance tests. We granted reconsideration on 
this issue to provide an opportunity for public comment on the PAH 
testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn. A summary of the 
comments received on this issue and the responses are provided in the 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the 
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Final Rule available in the docket for 
this rulemaking.
    As we stated in the reconsideration proposal (81 FR 45089), we 
received additional PAH test data just 3 weeks prior to the signature 
of the supplemental proposal (which we were not able to include in our 
analyses in time for signature of the supplemental proposal) and yet 
more data during the comment period for the supplemental proposal. This 
new data showed PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn were over 12 
times higher in concentration than previous test reports submitted by 
the petitioner. As we explained in the reconsideration proposal, this 
data thus demonstrates that PAH emissions from furnaces producing FeMn 
are highly variable. Moreover, PAH emissions are a major source of 
cancer risks from these furnaces. In the risk assessment performed for 
the supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238), we estimated the maximum 
lifetime individual cancer risk posed by actual emissions from the 
ferroalloys production facilities was 20-in-1 million, with PAH 
contributing 49 percent of the cancer risk.
    Testing frequency is part of verification that the limit is met. 
Stack testing is an important tool used to determine a facility's 
compliance with both initial and on-going compliance with the CAA 
requirements. A highly variable set of measurements on which the limit 
is based leads to us to want more certainty about the source's 
compliance with the limit, and such certainty can be provided by more 
frequent testing. Because of the variability of the PAH emissions 
during FeMn production, we believe that the quarterly testing is 
appropriate for ensuring compliance with the emission limit and 
protecting human health.
    Furthermore, as we explained in the final rule and the 
reconsideration proposal, we believe the quarterly testing, along with 
the collection of process information that a facility may choose to 
collect voluntarily, could provide data that would help facilities 
learn what factors or conditions are contributing to the quantity and 
variation of PAH emissions. For example, we believe the collection and 
analyses of 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 may 
help facilities understand what factors are associated with the higher 
PAH emissions and could provide insight regarding how to limit these 
emissions. Furthermore, as we described in the preamble of the final 
rule (80 FR 37383), if a facility decides to apply for a decreased 
frequency of performance testing from their permit authority, the type 
of information described above could be helpful input for such an 
application. For these reasons, the quarterly performance testing with 
an opportunity after the first year for facilities to request from 
their permitting authority a decreased frequency to annual performance 
testing is appropriate for ensuring compliance with the PAH emission 
limit and protecting human health. The option for decreased performance 
testing also provides an incentive for the facilities to achieve 
compliance with the PAH standards. Therefore, we are not making any 
changes to the PAH testing frequency for furnaces producing FeMn.

[[Page 5406]]

IV. Denial of Petition for Reconsideration of FeMn and SiMn PAH 
Emission Limits

    In the final rule, the EPA set PAH limits of 0.130 milligrams per 
dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm) for furnaces producing SiMn and 12 
mg/dscm for furnaces producing FeMn. Both petitioners requested 
reconsideration of these emission limits and asserted that they did not 
have an opportunity to comment on the limits. The petitioners were 
concerned that achieving these PAH emission limits may require 
additional controls. The petitioners also argued with how the PAH 
emission limits were calculated. The petitioners claimed that the EPA 
used a normal data distribution to determine the upper prediction limit 
(UPL), but the data sets have lognormal distributions. The petitioners 
further claim that had the EPA used a lognormal distribution, it would 
have resulted in higher emission limits. In addition, one petitioner 
argued that EPA should not have excluded a 3-hour single test run.
    As stated in the preamble for the final rule (80 FR 37366), the PAH 
emission limits were re-evaluated in the final rule to include PAH test 
data that were received just prior to publication of the supplemental 
proposal and during the comment period for the supplemental proposal. 
The expanded PAH test data set was analyzed using the same statistical 
procedures from the EPA's UPL memorandum used to calculate the PAH 
emissions limits in the supplemental proposal. Using the statistical 
procedures from this memorandum (which describes the EPA's established 
procedures for calculating MACT floor limits), the PAH data sets were 
determined to have a normal distribution. Therefore, the UPL equation 
for calculating the 99-percent UPL was used to determine the PAH 
emission limit. The EPA had already provided adequate notice of the 
analyses and application of the UPL in the memorandum in the 
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238). With regard to the 3-hour single 
test run the petitioner referred to in their reconsideration petition, 
we determined there were quality assurance and control issues with the 
laboratory analysis, and therefore did not include these data in the 
UPL analysis. The results of every valid 3-run test provided by the 
industry were below the final PAH limits for both FeMn and SiMn 
production. Therefore, we believe both facilities should be able to 
comply with these limits without the need for additional add-on 
controls. Furthermore, EPA calculated the limits using well established 
EPA policy and procedures. At the time the EPA published the 
supplemental proposal (79 FR 60238, October 6, 2014), the EPA made the 
existing PAH emissions data and the methodologies used to calculate the 
limits available for public comment. The limits in the final rule were 
a logical outgrowth of the limits in the supplemental proposal as EPA 
made no changes to the methodology used to calculate the limits and 
simply recalculated the limits after the addition of the newly 
available data with the previously received data. Therefore, we have 
decided to deny reconsideration of the PAH emission limits for both 
FeMn and SiMn production furnaces. More details are available in the 
Summary of Public Comments and Responses on Reconsideration of the 
Ferroalloys Production NESHAP Final Rule in the docket for this 
rulemaking.

V. Impacts Associated With This Final Rule

    We project that this rule will result in no significant changes in 
costs, emission reductions or benefits. Even though there are changes 
to the costs, these changes are small relative to the overall costs and 
benefits of the 2015 final rule. However, the costs for monitoring 
baghouses will be lower than the costs in the final rule due to the 
additional option provided in this action to use visible emissions 
monitoring to monitor positive pressure baghouses as an alternative to 
installing and operating a BLDS.

A. What are the air impacts?

    Even though we have allowed for an alternative monitoring method to 
the BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses, we believe that 
this change will result in no additional emissions from the baghouses 
used to control emissions from the furnace. Accordingly, we believe 
that the final rule will not result in significant changes in emissions 
of any of the regulated pollutants.

B. What are the energy impacts?

    The changes to the final rule are anticipated to have minimal 
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. As previously 
stated, we are allowing for an alternative monitoring method to the 
BLDS requirement for positive pressure baghouses controlling emissions 
from the furnace. By allowing this alternative, we anticipate slightly 
lower energy usage by the one facility that uses this type of baghouse.

C. What are the compliance costs?

    We believe there will be no significant change in compliance costs 
as a result of the changes to the final rule. However, as mentioned 
above, we anticipate that one facility will have moderately lower 
compliance costs due to allowing an alternative monitoring method for 
positive pressure baghouses. We anticipate that the alternative 
monitoring method will have an annual cost of $38,000, whereas the 
annual operating cost for a BLDS was estimated to be $219,000. Overall, 
we anticipate the Ferroalloys Production source category will not incur 
significant compliance costs or savings as a result of the changes to 
the final rule.

D. What are the economic and employment impacts?

    We believe that there will be a slight economic benefit to one of 
the facilities due to allowing an alternative monitoring method for 
positive pressure baghouses. In the reconsideration proposal, we 
estimated the capital cost for the installation of BLDS for each 
facility would be $269,100 and annualized costs would be $219,000. For 
this final action, based on information received from the company, we 
now estimate capital costs for the BLDS for Felman would be $1.1 
million with annualized costs of $330,000. We believe allowing an 
alternative monitoring method for positive pressure baghouses in this 
final action will reduce the cost of complying with the final rule for 
this facility. However, we believe this final action will not have any 
impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets or the 
U.S. economy.

E. What are the benefits of the final standards?

    We do not anticipate any emission changes, and therefore there are 
no direct monetized benefits or disbenefits associated with the changes 
to this final rule.

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 Order 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.

[[Page 5407]]

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden 
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection 
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0676. This action adds an alternative monitoring 
requirement and a revised test method, but does not make revisions to 
the reporting requirements in the final rule. Therefore, this action 
does not change the information collection requirements previously 
finalized and, as a result, does not impose any additional burden on 
industry.

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. This 
final action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The 
agency has determined that neither of the companies affected by this 
action is considered to be a small entity.

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 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. The health risk assessments completed for the final rule are 
presented in the Residual Risk Assessment for the Ferroalloys Source 
Category in Support of the 2015 Final Rule document, which is available 
in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895-0281), and are 
discussed in Section V.G of the preamble for the final rule (80 FR 
37366).

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 (NTTAA) and 1 CFR 
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. The EPA decided to use 
ASTM D7520-16, ``Standard Test Method for Determining the Opacity of a 
Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere,'' for measuring opacity from 
the shop buildings. The ASTM D7520-16 is a method to assess opacity 
whereby a Digital Still Camera is used to capture a set of digital 
images of a plume against a contrasting background. Each image is 
analyzed with software that determines plume opacity by comparing a 
user defined portion of the plume image where opacity is being measured 
in comparison to the background providing the contrasting values. The 
Analysis Software is used to average the opacities from the series of 
digital images taken of the plume over a fixed period of time. The 
software is also used to archive the image set utilized for each 
opacity determination including the portion of each image selected by 
the operator. Each DCOT vendor shall provide training for operators of 
their DCOT system. The training shall include the content of the 
``Principles of Visual Emissions Measurements and Procedures to 
Evaluate those Emissions Using the Digital Camera Optical Technique 
(DCOT)'' and a description of how to operate that specific DCOT system 
that passed smoke school. This standard is an acceptable alternative to 
EPA Method 9 and is available from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post Office Box C700, West 
Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. See http://www.astm.org/.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human 
health or the environment because it only provides an alternative 
monitoring provision and revised test method that will not affect the 
emission standards that were finalized on June 30, 2015.

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 in 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: December 28, 2016.
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 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(96) through (h)(104) as (h)(97) through 
(h)(105), respectively; and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (h)(96).

Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (96) ASTM D7520-16, Standard Test Method for Determining the 
Opacity of a Plume in the Outdoor Ambient Atmosphere, approved April 1, 
2016, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  63.1625(b).
* * * * *

[[Page 5408]]

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

0
3. Section 63.1625 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text, (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii), 
and (b)(9)(v); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) through (iv).
    The revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) ASTM D7520-16 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 D7520-16, 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 
D7520-16.
* * * * *
    (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 D7520-16 and these 
requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) You must conduct the opacity observations according to ASTM 
D7520-16 (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 D7520-16 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 
D7520-16 for a 1-hour period that includes at least one pouring for 
each MOR located in the shop building.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.1626 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text and (c)(1);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (o) as paragraphs (e) through 
(p), respectively;
0
c. Adding new paragraph (d);
0
d. Republishing the heading of redesignated paragraph (e), and revising 
paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3) introductory text, (e)(4) introductory text, 
and (e)(4)(ii);
0
e. Revising redesignated paragraph (h) introductory text;
0
f. Revising redesignated paragraph (j) introductory text;
0
g. Revising redesignated paragraph (k) introductory text; and
0
h. Revising redesignated paragraph (p) introductory text.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  63.1626  What monitoring requirements must I meet?

* * * * *
    (c) For an existing positive pressure baghouse used to control 
emissions from an electric arc furnace that is not equipped with a bag 
leak detection system, you must specify in the standard operating 
procedures manual for inspections and routine maintenance, at a 
minimum, the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) You must visually inspect the outlet of each baghouse using 
Method 22 on a twice daily basis (at least 4 hours apart) for evidence 
of any visible emissions indicating abnormal operations and must 
initiate corrective actions within 1 hour of any visible emissions that 
indicates abnormal operation. Corrective actions shall include, at a 
minimum, isolating, shutting down and conducting an internal inspection 
of the baghouse compartment that is the source of the visible emissions 
that indicate abnormal operations.
* * * * *
    (d) For all other non-furnace baghouses that are not equipped with 
bag leak detection or CEMS, the procedures that you specify in the 
standard operating procedures manual for inspections and routine 
maintenance must, at a minimum, include the requirements of paragraphs 
(d)(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.
* * * * *
    (e) 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 (e)(2) through (4) of this section, unless a system meeting 
the requirements of paragraph (p) of this section, for a CEMS and 
continuous emissions rate monitoring system, is installed for 
monitoring the concentration of particulate matter, or an existing 
positive pressure baghouse used to control emissions from an electric 
arc furnaces that is subject to paragraph (c) of this section. 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 (e)(2) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Each bag leak detection system must meet the specifications and 
requirements in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (viii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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

[[Page 5409]]

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 (e)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (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 (e)(4)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) 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 (h)(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.
* * * * *
    (j) Requirements for sources using CMS. If you demonstrate 
compliance with any applicable emissions limit through use of a 
continuous monitoring system (CMS), where a CMS includes a continuous 
parameter monitoring system (CPMS) as well as a continuous emissions 
monitoring system (CEMS), you must develop a site-specific monitoring 
plan and submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at 
least 60 days before your initial performance evaluation (where 
applicable) of your CMS. Your site-specific monitoring plan must 
address the monitoring system design, data collection and the quality 
assurance and quality control elements outlined in this 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 (j)(1) through 
(6) of this section in your site-specific monitoring plan.
* * * * *
    (k) If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CPMS, 
you must install, operate and maintain each continuous parameter 
monitoring system according to the procedures in paragraphs (k)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (p) 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 (p)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 63.1656 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(7) 
introductory text, (b)(7)(i) and (ii), and (b)(7)(v) to read as 
follows:

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine 
opacity. ASTM D7520-16, ``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 D7520-16, 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 D7520-16.
* * * * *
    (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 D7520-16 and 
these requirements is on the facility, DCOT operator and DCOT vendor.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-00156 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P