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, 8523-8534 [05-3360]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8523-8534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3360]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[OAR-2002-0049; FRL-7874-9]
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: Final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates amendments to the new source 
performance standards for electric arc furnaces constructed after 
October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983, and the new source 
performance standards for electric arc furnaces constructed after 
August 17, 1983. The final amendments add alternative requirements for 
monitoring emissions from furnace exhausts and make minor editorial 
corrections.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 2005.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action including both Docket No. OAR-2002-0049 and Docket No. A-79-33. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at https://
www.epa.gov/edocket (or Docket No. A-79-33). Not all docket materials 
are available electronically. The materials in Docket No. A-79-33 are 
in hard copy form and are publicly available through the docket 
facility as set forth below. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other information, such as copyrighted materials, is 
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in EDOCKET or in hard copy form at the New Source 
Performance Standards for Electric Arc Furnaces Docket, Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0049 (or A-79-33), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kevin Cavender, Emission Standards 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C439-02), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-2364, electronic mail (e-mail) address, 
cavender.kevin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of regulated
            Category              NAICS code \1\         entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................           331111  Steel manufacturing
                                                   facilities that
                                                   operate electric arc
                                                   furnaces.
Federal government.............  ...............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..  ...............   Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    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 40 CFR 60.270 
(for electric arc furnaces constructed after October 21, 1974, and on 
or before August 17, 1983) or 40 CFR 60.270a (for electric arc furnaces 
and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels constructed after August 7, 
1983), as applicable. 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.

B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related 
Information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
today's final rule amendments will also be available on the Worldwide 
Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of the final rule amendments will be 
placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for proposed or 
promulgated rules at https://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.

C. What Are the Judicial Review Requirements?

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of the final rule amendments is available only by filing a petition for 
review in the U.S.

[[Page 8524]]

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by April 25, 
2005. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the 
final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the 
period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Under 
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of 
today's final rule amendments may not be challenged separately in civil 
or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these 
requirements.

D. How Is This Document Organized?

    The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

II. Background
    A. What Is an Electric Arc Furnace?
    B. What Are the Current Requirements of the New Source 
Performance Standards for Electric Arc Furnaces?
    C. Why Are We Amending the New Source Performance Standards?
III. Summary of the Final Amendments
    A. What Is the New Alternative Monitoring Option?
    B. What Editorial Corrections Are We Making?
IV. Response to Comments
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

II. Background

A. What Is an Electric Arc Furnace?

    An electric arc furnace (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\1/2\ 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, or fourth hole, in the furnace roof which draws 
emissions to a gas cleaner. The DEC system works only when the furnace 
is up-right and the roof is in place. The side draft hoods collect 
furnace off gases 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 Requirements of the New Source Performance 
Standards for Electric Arc Furnaces?

    The new source performance standards (NSPS) for EAF constructed 
after October 21, 1974, and on or before August 17, 1983 (40 CFR part 
60, subpart AA) were first promulgated 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 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) or 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic 
foot (gr/dscf). In addition to the PM emission limit, both subparts 
limit visible emissions from the EAF control device (typically a 
baghouse) 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 or operator must report each 6-minute average COMS reading of 
3 percent or greater as an excess emission. A COMS is not required on 
any modular or multiple-stack 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 We Amending the New Source Performance Standards?

    We are amending the NSPS in response to a petition to reopen the 
NSPS filed by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the 
Speciality Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), and the Steel 
Manufacturers Association (SMA) (``the Petitioner''). In the request to 
reopen, the Petitioner argues that COMS are not capable of accurately 
monitoring opacity emissions from an EAF shop at the 3 percent excess 
emission threshold level, and that the EAF NSPS should be amended to 
address the technological shortcomings associated with COMS. In making 
this argument, the Petitioner points to our recent revision (65 FR 
48914, August 10, 2000) to performance specification 1 (PS-1) for COMS 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) in which we acknowledge that there is 
potential for measurement error associated with COMS readings. On 
October 16, 2002 (67 FR 64014), in response to the petition, we 
proposed amendments to the NSPS that would allow bag leak detection 
systems as an alternative monitoring option. More information on the 
industry petition can be found in the preamble to the proposed 
amendments.
    Today's final rule amendments reflect our full consideration of the 
petition, including all of the public comments received. The petition 
to reopen is granted to the extent provided in today's final action 
adding an alternative to COMS for monitoring emissions from EAF control 
devices. The petition is denied in all other respects. For the reasons 
stated in the response to comments below, we have determined that the 
alternatives suggested by the Petitioner are inappropriate, and that 
other measures, including the bag leak detection system monitoring 
alternative finalized today, adequately address its concerns about 
potential measurement error.

[[Page 8525]]

III. Summary of the Final Amendments

A. What Is the New Alternative Monitoring Option?

    The final rule amendments allow plants to use a bag leak detection 
system on all single stack fabric filters as an alternative monitoring 
option to COMS. Owners or operators are required to develop a site-
specific monitoring plan describing how the system will be selected, 
installed, and operated, including how the alarm levels will be 
established. In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is 
triggered, the owner or operator must initiate corrective action to 
determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm and 
alleviate the cause of the alarm within 3 hours. An approved site-
specific monitoring plan may allow more than 3 hours for alleviating a 
specified condition where an explanation is provided justifying a 
longer time period.
    The owner or operator also must conduct an opacity observation at 
least once per day when the furnace is in the melting and refining 
period, in accordance with EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 
All opacity observations greater than 3 percent opacity must 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 must be lowered to a point that an alarm 
would have occurred during the observation.

B. What Editorial Corrections Are We Making?

    Two typographical errors are corrected in the amendments. In 40 CFR 
60.274(c) and in 40 CFR 60.274a(c), the references to paragraphs (b)(1) 
and (2) are 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 
corrected to refer to paragraph (e).
    In addition, 40 CFR 60.274a(d) and 40 CFR 60.274a(e) are 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). These revisions do not 
change the rules requirements because owners and operators are 
currently allowed to petition for alternative monitoring requirements 
under 40 CFR 60.13(i) of the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, 
subpart A).

IV. Response to Comments

    We received a total of 20 comment letters on the proposed 
amendments from representatives of three industry trade associations, 
one State agency, one steelmaking company, the steelworkers labor 
union, three equipment vendors, and two private citizens. We offered to 
provide interested individuals the opportunity for oral presentations 
of data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed amendments, but a 
public hearing was not requested. Today's final rule amendments reflect 
our full consideration of all the comments received.
    Comment: We received comments supporting bag leak detection systems 
as an alternative to COMS from two equipment vendors, representatives 
of three industry trade associations, and one steelmaker. Two vendors 
express support for bag leak detection systems based on comparative 
study results and the lower operation and maintenance costs. The 
industry commenters express support for this alternative monitoring 
system because of a reported potential for measurement error associated 
with COMS at levels below 10 percent opacity, which they believe is 
evidenced by the revisions to PS-1 for COMS (65 FR 48914, August 10, 
2000).
    We received comments opposing bag leak detection systems as an 
alternative to COMS from 11 members of one equipment vending firm, two 
private citizens, one State environmental agency, and representatives 
of the steelworker's union. These commenters do not agree that the 
proposed alternative is necessary because revisions to PS-1 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B) in EPA's 2002 ``Conditional Performance 
Specification for Measurement 0-10% Opacity'' (designed specifically 
for EAF) ensure accurate COMS measurements below 10 percent opacity. 
The conditional performance specification addresses the limitations of 
PS-1 and the technical problems described in the industry's study. In 
addition, a low-opacity COMS that meets PS-1 and the conditional 
performance specification has been installed and certified on EAF. The 
low-opacity COMS costs only 15 percent more than a standard COMS and is 
easy to use. One commenter also contends that EPA has not shown in the 
administrative record that steel mini-mills have been improperly 
burdened by enforcement actions based on erroneous opacity readings 
below 10 percent. Another stated that allowing the proposed alternative 
will increase emissions and noncompliance.
    The commenters argue that plants cannot use bag leak detection 
systems to certify continuous compliance because they are not accurate 
enough and do not actually measure PM or opacity. In addition, Method 9 
(40 CFR part 60, appendix B) cannot provide a reasonable check of bag 
leak detection systems because: (1) The method is good only at opacity 
levels of 7 to 8 percent; (2) COMS are necessary for some facilities 
where Method 9 is not applicable or accurate due to factors such as 
baghouse orientation or extreme southern latitudes, (3) the periodic 
readings are taken only once daily for 18 minutes during daylight hours 
and not during the operations that generate the most emissions, or (4) 
are subject to manipulation.
    Response: We disagree with commenters that bag leak detectors are 
ineffective or inappropriate. We have required bag leak detection 
systems as monitoring systems in numerous national emission standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) developed under section 112 of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA). We are not aware of any States or EPA Regions 
with concerns about certifying continuous compliance for the numerous 
existing rules that utilize bag leak detection systems, and the 
commenters did not provide any specific information in support of their 
assertions. These systems have been demonstrated to be very effective 
at detecting leaks and bag failures on a continuing basis in many 
different applications. The systems provide timely information that can 
be used to reduce excess emissions that occur when unexpected leaks or 
failures occur.
    Bag leak detection systems offer a viable and effective alternative 
to COMS for monitoring the performance of baghouses. While bag leak 
detection systems do not directly measure PM or opacity, they sense any 
increase in PM concentration at very low levels before emissions rise 
to a level that would result in observable opacity. Given the 
sensitivity of bag leak detection systems to changes in PM 
concentration, along with the daily Method 9 observations to verify the 
performance of the bag leak detection systems, allowing bag leak 
detections systems as an alternative to COMS will not increase 
emissions or noncompliance. In fact, the opposite is true. By requiring 
owners and operators to identify leaks quickly and to make prompt 
repairs, we expect facilities that elect to use the bag leak detection 
alternative will reduce emissions.

[[Page 8526]]

    Upon further review of the appropriateness of bag leak detection 
systems for the final rules, we became aware that the proposed minimum 
sensitivity of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per 
actual cubic foot) was near the level of the PM standard (12 mg/dscm or 
0.0052 gr/dscf). However, based on consultation with vendors of bag 
leak detections systems, it was determined that standard bag leak 
detections systems are easily capable of measuring baseline emissions 
of 1 milligram per actual cubic meter or lower. As a result, we are 
lowering the minimum sensitivity to 1 milligram per actual cubic meter 
(0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot). This change does not represent 
a significant departure from our proposed amendments because it does 
not affect the selection or cost of the bag leak detection systems 
available to owners or operators, but merely provides a more accurate 
representation of the minimum sensitivity of existing bag leak 
detection systems.
    We disagree that Method 9 observations are inadequate to verify the 
performance of the bag leak detection systems. Although the human eye 
may not be able to distinguish opacity to the nearest 1 percent 
opacity, Method 9 observations were used as a basis for the 3 percent 
opacity limit. Method 9 involves 15 second opacity readings that are 
recorded at discrete values to the nearest 5 percent opacity, i.e., 
values of either 0, 5, 10, or 15 percent, etc. Over a 6-minute period, 
Method 9 produces 24 readings that are used to develop the 6-minute 
average values. Method 9 readings were used to develop the original 3 
percent opacity standard and continues to be the performance test 
method for determining compliance identified for these final rules as 
well as many others for measurement of opacity. As such, the proposed 
daily Method 9 observations are directly applicable and appropriate for 
the verification of the performance of the bag leak detection systems 
(as well as their direct use to assess compliance).
    We do not agree that the commenter's concerns about limitations on 
the times that Method 9 may be conducted necessitate the use of COMS. 
Method 9 and 40 CFR 60.273(c) and 40 CFR 60.273a(c) specify the 
conditions under which the tests are to be conducted. Owners and 
operators must schedule and conduct the daily Method 9 reading such 
that these conditions are met. We do not know of any EAF facility that 
would be unable to meet the Method 9 requirements due to baghouse 
orientation and extreme southern latitude, and the commenter did not 
provide any specific information in support of their assertions. Also, 
the requirement to perform the Method 9 observation during melting and 
refining is consistent with the existing requirements for Method 9 
observations on EAF stacks that are not equipped with COMS (40 CFR 
60.273(c), 60.273a(c), 60.275(i) and 60.275a(i)).
    The availability of low opacity COMS also does not warrant 
withholding bag leak detection systems as an alternative monitoring 
option. Although the installation and certification of new low-opacity 
COMS technology and the development of the conditional performance 
specification appear promising, additional steps are needed in the 
process before we can require their application. The conditional 
performance specification still must be approved as an alternative 
method or a revision to PS-1 before a source may use it to meet Federal 
requirements under 40 CFR part 60, 61, or 63. During that process, the 
specification is potentially subject to change based on the review of 
additional validation studies or on public comments as part of the 
process for adoption as an EPA test method or as a revision to PS-1. 
Nonetheless, an owner or operator who would prefer to use a low-opacity 
COMS could install a low-opacity COMS and certify it using PS-1, or 
apply to certify the low opacity COMS based on the conditional 
performance specification as an alternative monitoring option as 
allowed under the NSPS General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
    Based on a review of public comments, we maintain that the bag leak 
detection systems provide a reasonable alternative to the COMS 
requirements.
    Comment: Two industry commenters state that the bag leak detection 
system alternative does not resolve the potential measurement error 
associated with COMS readings at the 3 percent opacity level and thus 
does not resolve the petition to reopen the NSPS. The commenters cite 
statements in the rulemaking for PS-1 regarding the technological 
limitations of COMS, including a comment by an American Society for 
Testing and Materials (ASTM) representative that the ASTM standard for 
COMS (ASTM D6216-98), which is incorporated in PS-1, ensures accurate 
COMS measurements only at sources with opacity limits of 10 percent or 
greater. They also cite EPA's estimate of the upper range of potential 
measurement error of 4 percent opacity, and an industry study finding 
that COMS complying with PS-1 requirements have a potential error band 
of 7.5 percent.
    The commenters stated that inaccurate data results in negative 
legal implications, such as exposure to inappropriate enforcement 
actions, hurdles to certifications of continuous compliance in the 
title V permitting program, and the triggering of additional excess 
emissions reports for false positive COMS readings. One commenter adds 
that false positive readings from COMS have occurred, as evidenced by 
simultaneous information from both COMS and Method 9 readings. The 
commenters stated that the proposed option does not resolve the 
industry's petition because it does not address the COMS error band 
issue. Not all facilities affected by the error band issue can replace 
COMS with bag leak detection systems due to costs, permit requirements, 
and the reluctance of EPA Regional Offices to approve the change. They 
request that EPA raise the excess reporting threshold to account for 
the error band, acknowledge that the COMS data within the error band 
are not credible evidence of opacity violations, or eliminate the COMS 
requirement in its entirety.
    One commenter suggests that EPA retain the COMS requirements but 
require plants to report only the data that exceeds 10 percent opacity 
to address the error band issue. Opacity data less than 10 percent 
should not be recorded or reported.
    Response: The alternatives suggested by the commenters do not 
provide adequate assurance and documentation that the opacity standard 
is being continuously maintained. Raising the excess reporting 
threshold would preclude the permitting authority and the public from 
obtaining information on any opacity exceedances falling below the new 
higher threshold (as high as 10 percent under the commenters' view) and 
thus undermine accountability to the 3 percent opacity standard. 
Eliminating the COMS requirement would result in the wholesale loss of 
continuous opacity measurements, even where exceedances are far above 
the potential error band.
    The revisions to PS-1 explained that it was not appropriate to 
limit the applicability of PS-1 based on the level of the emission 
limit that would be measured. We determined that PS-1 should 
acknowledge the uncertainty associated with COMS measurements below 10 
percent opacity and allow for consideration of the potential error 
(through statistical procedures or otherwise) when evaluating 
compliance with opacity standards below 10 percent. As commenters 
acknowledge,

[[Page 8527]]

EPA conducted a very conservative analysis of the upper range of 
potential measurement error that may be associated with COMS meeting 
PS-1 and found the upper range of potential measurement error to be 
about 4 percent. We also noted that a ``properly operating and aligned 
COMS should experience measurement error significantly less than this 
magnitude.'' Thus, instead of broadly limiting the applicability of 
COMS, any uncertainty should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
    We note that while COMS is the required monitoring method (in the 
absence of a source choosing the alternative monitoring option 
finalized today), Method 9 remains the performance test method and, as 
such, is the benchmark against which other data are compared in 
determining source compliance.\1\ If the company believes the COMS data 
are not credible evidence of an opacity violation, it may dispute the 
materiality of such data in its compliance certification or excess 
emissions report.\2\ It may also challenge the relevance and accuracy 
of the COMS data in a judicial or administrative tribunal.\3\ Thus, it 
is not necessary or appropriate to make a broad determination that COMS 
data within the potential error band are not credible evidence of 
opacity violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Credible Evidence Revisions (62 FR 8314, February 24, 
1997) (``the reference tests remain the benchmark against which * * 
* other information will be evaluated.'').
    \2\ See Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 194 F.3d 130, 
138 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (``[N]othing precludes an owner from adding a 
caveat to its certification to the effect that, while it is 
providing other evidence which EPA might find material, the 
submitter disputes its materiality and reserves the right to 
challenge the use of the evidence in court.'').
    \3\ See 62 FR at 8322; Grand Canyon Trust v. Public Serv. Co. of 
New Mexico, 294 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D.N.M. 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the bag leak detection system alternative provides 
owners or operators who are concerned with the accuracy of COMS 
measurements the option to use bag leak detection systems instead of 
COMS. Case-by-case approval of this alternative monitoring method by 
EPA Regional Offices will no longer be necessary after the alternative 
is incorporated into the NSPS through today's final rule amendments.
    Comment: Comments from the industry trade associations support the 
proposed alternative but oppose certain provisions. They suggest that: 
(1) Facilities should be allowed 1 hour (rather than 30 minutes) to 
initiate procedures to determine the cause of an alarm, (2) the 
proposed 3-hour limit for alleviating the cause of an alarm be replaced 
with ``as soon as practicable'' or ``within a reasonable time'' to 
account for scenarios that may take longer than 3 hours to identify and 
fix, and (3) facilities should not have to receive advance approval of 
their site-specific monitoring plan.
    Response: A key and necessary component of the bag leak detection 
system alternative is the requirement to initiate corrective action and 
alleviate the cause of alarms as soon as possible. Providing specific 
time requirements makes the standard much clearer for both the 
regulators and the regulated community. Based on our experience with 
baghouses, bag leak detectors, and the various corrective actions that 
may be required, we determined that the 30-minute period to initiate 
corrective action was insufficient and should be revised to 1 hour. 
This change is consistent with the bag leak detection requirements we 
have promulgated in other rules.
    We agree that the cause of the alarm should be alleviated as soon 
as practicable; however, the 3-hour limit is reasonable and necessary 
to ensure that corrective action needed to alleviate the cause of the 
alarm be taken to ensure timely action and to protect the environment. 
Most causes of an alarm can be fixed within the 3-hour limit. For 
example, modern baghouses have multiple compartments so that one 
compartment can be quickly isolated (i.e., taken out of service) to 
perform maintenance or to isolate a leaking bag without requiring the 
process to be shut down. Nonetheless, we have added a provision to the 
final rule amendments stating that, as part of the site-specific 
monitoring plan, the Administrator or delegated authority may approve 
such additional time as necessary to ensure corrective action as 
expeditiously as practicable where the owner or operator identifies the 
condition that could lead to an alarm and adequately explains why the 
3-hour limit for the condition is not feasible. This adequately 
addresses those few scenarios where more than 3 hours is necessary to 
alleviate the cause of the alarm.
    We are retaining the requirement to receive advance approval of 
site-specific monitoring plans. Pre-approval of the monitoring plans 
serves several purposes. First, it provides EPA an indication of which 
monitoring method the facility will use. Second, it ensures that the 
monitors will be properly installed for all applicable emission points. 
In addition, it provides the owner or operator some assurance that the 
proposed monitoring approach will be satisfactory and may avoid 
unnecessary expenditures if the monitoring approach was found to be 
inadequate after it was implemented.
    Comment: One commenter proposed a change to 40 CFR 
60.723(e)(6)(ii), which reads: ``opacity over zero percent would 
require an adjustment of the bag leak detection system alarm levels.'' 
The commenter stated this should read ``over three percent.''
    Response: As discussed above, a Method 9 opacity observation is 
composed of 24 individual, 15 second opacity readings. Each individual 
reading is recorded in 5 percent increments. As such, any visible 
emissions would be recorded as 5 percent opacity or greater. Baghouses 
in good working condition control emissions to below the level that 
would result in visible emissions (i.e., zero percent). If visible 
emissions are observed from a baghouse, it is an indication that a leak 
has occurred, and the bag leak detection system should be adjusted to 
ensure the alarm sounds at that point or below.
    Comment: One commenter stated the proposed amendment improperly 
relaxes monitoring requirements by allowing excursions from bag leak 
detection system operational parameters for up to 3 percent of facility 
operating hours. The commenter stated that this provision does not 
ensure continuous compliance with the opacity and particulate emission 
limits.
    On the other hand, comments from industry trade associations oppose 
the 3 percent limit on alarms because: (1) It undermines the purpose of 
bag leak detection systems, which is to detect emissions before they 
become exceedances; and (2) the limit assumes that alarms equate to 
exceedances or that the alarms indicate poor operation. The number of 
alarms may reflect only how low a facility sets the alarm level, and 
the operating limit serves to increase the stringency of the emission 
limit. Instead, the commenter suggests that EPA adopt an alarm 
threshold above which plants would be required to implement a quality 
improvement plan or adopt a threshold of 5 percent as it has done in 
other rules. The proposed amendments should also describe more clearly 
how operating time is to be calculated and confirm what operations 
would constitute a startup, shutdown, or malfunction.
    Response: We reconsidered the 3 percent limit on alarms for 
baghouse leak detection system alarms as applied to EAF. We have no 
data indicating that the 3 percent limit on alarms has been applied to 
these operations, and we have no firm basis for determining what level, 
if any, might be appropriate for these operations. We agree that the

[[Page 8528]]

purpose of bag leak detection systems is to detect emissions before 
they become exceedances. For these reasons, we have dropped the 3 
percent limit on alarms. However, it is important that corrective 
action be initiated promptly; consequently, we require that corrective 
actions be initiated within 1 hour of an alarm to ensure baghouses are 
well maintained and operated properly on a continuing basis. Excessive 
alarms are effectively limited by the general duty under 40 CFR 
60.11(d) to maintain and operate air pollution control equipment in a 
manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for 
minimizing emissions.
    In response to the comments, we have not included the following 
proposed provisions in the final rule amendments: (1) The definition of 
``operating time'' in 40 CFR 60.271(p) and 60.271a, (2) the proposed 
operating limit in 40 CFR 63.273(g) and 63.273a(g), (3) associated 
provisions in 40 CFR 63.273(h) and 63.273a(h) for determining how to 
calculate the percentage of time the alarm sounds, and (4) associated 
recordkeeping and recording requirements in 40 CFR 63.276(e) and (f) 
and 40 CFR 63.276a(h)(4) and (i).
    Comment: One commenter asks EPA to specify whether bag leak 
detection system records must be reported according to the requirements 
in 40 CFR 70.6(c) and 71.6(c) and whether the records may be used to 
establish violations under the NSPS credible evidence requirements in 
40 CFR 60.11. Should EPA remove the 3 percent allowance for operation 
of the EAF and fume collection system while the bag leak detection 
system indicates bag leaks or pressure loss, the amendments should 
clarify that any system failures that cause an alarm are evidence of a 
violation.
    Response: With regard to recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
under 40 CFR part 70, 40 CFR 70.6(c) and 71.6(c) clearly require that 
title V permits include recordkeeping and reporting provisions covering 
the bag leak detection system records in this NSPS (40 CFR 60.273(c), 
60.273a(c), 60.276(e), and 60.276a(h)). The part 70 regulations state 
that title V permits must contain recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements consistent with 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 71.6(a)(3), 
respectively. Those provisions further provide that the permit must 
incorporate ``all applicable recordkeeping requirements, including 
``[r]ecords of required monitoring information,'' and ``all applicable 
reporting requirements.'' They also require ``[s]ubmittal of reports of 
any required monitoring at least every six months.''
    Whether such records establish violations of the opacity limit will 
vary depending on the circumstances presented. As stated previously, 
the purpose of bag leak detection systems is to detect emissions before 
they become exceedances. Whether a particular alarm or exceedance can 
be used as credible evidence of such a violation depends upon the facts 
presented in each case. Additionally, as we stated in the preamble to 
the credible evidence rule, ``what evidence is credible and admissible 
will be determined by * * * taking into account how the evidence was 
gathered and the specifics of the emission standard and any associated 
reference method.'' (62 FR 8314, 8323, February 24, 1997).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Agency further explained that it would not issue lists 
of presumptively credible evidence, explaining that ``both judicial 
and administrative tribunals routinely make determinations 
concerning the admissibility and weight of evidence on a case-by-
case basis.'' (See 62 FR 8316.) Such case-by-case evaluations would 
apply to data generated by bag leak detection systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Independent of whether a particular alarm or exceedance is credible 
evidence of a violation of the opacity limit, sources have a duty to 
comply with the baghouse leak detection system monitoring requirements 
where a source chooses such monitoring as an alternative to COMS, and 
failure to comply with the monitoring requirements could give rise to 
an enforcement action under section 113(a)(3) or section 304(a) of the 
CAA.
    Comment: Comments from industry trade associations do not oppose 
the editorial corrections to 40 CFR 60.274(c) and 60.274a(c), but the 
commenter questions why the proposed wording of the regulatory text 
differs from the existing rule. The existing rule was amended on 
October 17, 2000, to read:

(c) When the owner or operator of an affected facility is required 
to demonstrate compliance with the standards under Sec.  
63.272(a)(3) and at any other time that the Administrator may 
require (under section 114 of the CAA, as amended) either * * *.

The proposed regulatory text reads ``at any other time the 
Administrator may require that''. The industry commenters believe the 
location of the word ``that'' could change the meaning of the 
paragraph. The paragraph could be interpreted as allowing the 
Administrator to choose which of the three monitoring options a 
facility must follow. To clarify this issue, the word ``that'' should 
follow ``at any other time.''
    Response: We did not intend to alter the placement of the word 
``that'' in 40 CFR 60.274(c) and 60.274a(c). We have revised the 
placement of the word ``that'' in the final rule amendment to follow 
``at any other time,'' as suggested by the commenter, to clarify that 
the Administrator does not choose which of the three monitoring options 
a facility must use.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
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 a ``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 entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations 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.
    It has been determined that the final rule amendments are not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule 
amendments have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements in the final rule amendments 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 records and reports required by 
these rule amendments are necessary for EPA to: (1) Identify new, 
modified, or reconstructed sources subject to the

[[Page 8529]]

rule; (2) ensure that the rule requirements are being properly applied; 
and (3) ensure that the emission control devices are being properly 
operated and maintained on a continuous basis. Based on the reported 
information, EPA can decide which plants, records, or processes should 
be inspected. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements are 
specifically authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All 
information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is 
safeguarded according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual increase to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
burden for the final rule amendments are estimated at 1,750 labor hours 
at a total cost of $96,145 nationwide, and the annual average increase 
in burden is 175 labor hours and $9,615 per source. The estimate of the 
increase in annual monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting annual cost 
in the final rule amendment is higher than the estimate made in the 
proposal by $34,878, which is due to the use of a higher cost of labor 
estimate ($26.16/hr, $54.94/hr including overhead) than was used in the 
proposal ($16.67/hr, $35.01/hr including overhead). We estimate that 
there will be no increase in the annualized capital costs due to the 
final 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 purpose 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 respond to a collection of information; search 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 number for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 60 are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this 
ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment 
to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control 
number for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in these final rule amendments.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with the final rule 
amendments. For the purposes of assessing the economic impact of 
today's final rule amendments on small entities, small entity is 
defined as: (1) A small business according to U.S. Small Business 
Administration size standards for NAICS code 331111 having no more than 
1,000 employees; (2) a small government jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and that is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule 
amendments on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern 
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603 
and 604). Thus, an agency may conclude that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
economic impact on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    The final rule amendments provide a new compliance option for all 
facilities (large or small) that is designed to increase flexibility. 
We have, therefore, concluded that today's final rule amendments will 
relieve regulatory burden for all small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA 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 an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA 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 the EPA 
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 the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it 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 EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the final rule amendments do not 
contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total 
annualized costs of the final rule amendments for any year is estimated 
at less than $97,000. Thus, today's final rule amendments are not 
subject to sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also 
determined

[[Page 8530]]

that the final 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. Thus, today's final rule amendments are not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that have 
tribal implications.''
    The final rule amendments do not have tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. 
No tribal governments own or operate an affected source. Thus, 
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the final rule amendments.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health & 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 EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets 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 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The final rule amendments 
are not subject to Executive Order 13045 because they are based on 
control technology and not on health or safety risks. No children's 
risk analysis was performed because the action only provides EAF owners 
and operators with an alternative monitoring option. Furthermore, the 
final rule amendments have been determined not to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.

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

    The final rule amendments are not subject to Executive Order 13211 
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because they are not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 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 EPA to provide Congress, through 
annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. The 
final rule amendments do not involve voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, generally provides 
that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule 
must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each 
House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United 
States. The EPA has submitted a report containing the final rule 
amendments and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United 
States prior to the publication of the final rule amendments in today's 
Federal Register. The final rule amendments are not a ``major rule'' as 
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 14, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Acting Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 60 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

Subpart AA--[Amended]

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


0
2. Section 60.271 is amended by adding new paragraph (o) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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.

0
3. Section 60.273 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding new

[[Page 8531]]

paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  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, multi-stack, negative-
pressure or positive-pressure 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 Sec.  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 1 milligram per actual cubic meter (0.00044 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 site-specific 
monitoring plan that addresses the items identified in paragraphs (i) 
through (v) of this paragraph (e)(4). 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'' (EPA-454/R-98-015). 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 detection system;
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point will be established;
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures;
    (iv) 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 site-specific monitoring plan required under 
paragraphs (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 detection 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 1 hour of an 
alarm. Except as provided for in paragraph (g) of this section, 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. 
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) In approving the site-specific monitoring plan required in 
paragraph (e)(4) of this section, the Administrator or delegated 
authority may allow owners or operators more than 3 hours t