National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing, 51306-51317 [05-17193]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51306-51317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17193]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0083; FRL-7962-2]
RIN 2060-AM76


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes amendments to the national emission 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron and 
steel manufacturing. The proposed amendments would add a new compliance 
option, revise emission limitations, reduce the frequency of repeat 
performance tests for certain emissions units, add corrective action 
requirements, and clarify certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 
2005.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by September 19, 2005, a public hearing will be held 
approximately 30 days following publication of this action in the 
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0083, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2002-0083 and mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
     Fax: (202) 566-1741 and (919) 541-5450.
     Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket 
Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2002-0083, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments 
to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2002-
0083, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20004. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. We request 
that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the contact 
person for the proposed action listed below see(FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083. 
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the 
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential 
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-
mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov websites are 
``anonymous access'' systems, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. (For additional information about EPA's public 
docket, visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 
2002 (67 FR 38102).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-2002-0083, EPA West 
Building, 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 EPA 
Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for 
copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals 
Group (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-
5289, fax number (919) 541-5450, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The regulated categories and entities affected 
by the NESHAP include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                NAIC
                  Category                     code\1\                Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................      331111  Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies,
                                                          sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process
                                                          furnace (BOPF) shops.
Federal government.........................  ..........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..............  ..........  Not affected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.


[[Page 51307]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7781 
of subpart FFFFF (NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing). 
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the 
entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of 
subpart A (General Provisions).
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed action will also be available on 
the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Following signature, a copy of the proposed action will be posted on 
the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated 
rules at the following address: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 
a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in 
presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing 
is to be held should contact Ms. Barbara Miles, Metals Group (C439-02), 
Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone (919) 541-5648.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments
III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
    A. Why are we proposing to revise the emission limitations?
    B. Why are we proposing to amend monitoring requirements for 
baghouses?
    C. Why are we proposing to revise the requirements for repeat 
performance tests?
    D. Why are we proposing to revise the definition of ``ladle 
metallurgy'' to exclude vacuum degassing?
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
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 and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

I. Background

    On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we issued the NESHAP for integrated 
iron and steel manufacturing facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
FFFFF). The NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
by requiring all major sources to meet emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP) reflecting application of the maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establish emission limitations 
for emission sources in each new or existing sinter plant, blast 
furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop.
    After promulgation of the NESHAP, five steel companies and one 
trade association filed a petition for review challenging the final 
standards (AK Steel Corporation et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, no. 03-1207, DC Cir.). The petitioners raised issues 
concerning:
     Failure to respond to substantive industry comments 
questioning the definitions, subcategorization, control technologies 
identified, emission standards, testing and monitoring, and other 
aspects of the rule;
     Failure to provide justification for setting standards for 
ladle metallurgy operations, sinter plant discharge ends, and sinter 
coolers;
     Requiring bag leak detection systems to be used for 
positive pressure baghouse systems that discharge without stacks or 
from baghouse systems with continuous emission monitors;
     Applying emission standards to control devices that do not 
discharge to the ambient air;
     Imposing stringent testing, monitoring, inspection, and 
reporting requirements on insignificant sources;
     Providing for the establishment of source-specific opacity 
limitations based on opacity observations made during required source 
performance testing and by specifying use of infeasible technical 
requirements for such observations; and
     Failing adequately to consider health threshold levels and 
to allow for alternative emission standards, performance testing 
requirements or monitoring methods that are demonstrated to provide 
comparable protection to public health and the environment.
    EPA and petitioners anticipate that the amendments to the NESHAP 
proposed in this notice will resolve these concerns, and EPA and 
industry petitioners have entered into a settlement agreement whereby 
EPA agreed to sign a notice proposing these amendments by September 23, 
2005. See 70 FR 36383, June 23, 2005 (public notice of settlement 
agreement pursuant to section 113 of the CAA; EPA received no adverse 
comment on this notice of settlement).

II. Summary of the Proposed Amendments

    The proposed amendments would revise the applicability of the 
emission limits for sinter cooler stacks at new and existing sinter 
plants. The revised limits would apply to each sinter cooler instead of 
to each sinter cooler stack. We are also proposing a 10 percent opacity 
limit for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant instead of the 
current particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.03 grains per dry 
standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The proposed amendments would also 
clarify (in a new footnote to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) 
that PM limits do not apply to discharges inside a building or 
structure housing a discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a 
casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop 
that is subject to a roof monitor opacity limit. We are proposing to 
change the frequency for conducting subsequent performance tests from 
twice each permit term to once each permit term for emission units 
equipped with a baghouse. Repeat performance tests would still be 
required at least twice each permit term for a sinter cooler at an 
existing sinter plant, for each unit equipped with a control device 
other than a baghouse, and for each affected source without a title V 
operating permit.
    The proposed amendments would revise the operating limit in 40 CFR 
63.7790(b)(3) for an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls 
emissions from a BOPF to require that the hourly average opacity of 
emissions from the control device be maintained at or below 10 percent.
    Section 63.7830(b) of the NESHAP requires a bag leak detection 
system for each baghouse used to meet a PM limit. The proposed 
amendments would add an alternative allowing plants to use a continuous 
opacity monitoring system (COMS) to monitor the opacity of emissions 
exiting each control device stack. A bag leak detection system or

[[Page 51308]]

COMS would not be required for a positive-pressure baghouse not 
equipped with exhaust gas stacks that was installed before August 30, 
2005.
    We are proposing to revise the requirements for operation and 
maintenance (O&M) plans. The proposed amendments would expand the 
corrective action procedures in 40 CFR 63.7800(b)(4) to apply to 
baghouses equipped with COMS in addition to those with bag leak 
detection systems. Plants would be required to initiate corrective 
action if a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or if 
emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average 
opacity of 5 percent.
    We are also proposing to add corrective action procedures for other 
types of control devices. If a venturi scrubber equipped with 
continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) or an ESP equipped with 
a COMS exceeds the opacity operating limit, plants would be required to 
take corrective action consistent with their site-specific monitoring 
plan. New provisions in 40 CFR 63.7833 would require plants to initiate 
corrective action to determine the cause of the exceedance within 1 
hour and to measure operating parameter value(s) for the emission unit 
within 24 hours of the exceedance. If the measured value(s) meet the 
applicable operating limit, the corrective action is successful and the 
emission unit would be in compliance with the applicable operating 
limit. If the initial corrective action is not successful, additional 
corrective action would be required within the next 24 hours. Plants 
would re-measure the operating parameter(s) and if the corrective 
action is successful, the emission unit would be in compliance with the 
applicable operating limit. If the second attempt at corrective action 
is not successful, the plant would report the exceedance as a deviation 
in the next semiannual compliance report.
    In other amendments, we are proposing to clarify the requirements 
for establishing venturi scrubber parametric operating limits in 40 CFR 
63.7824(b) by stating that plants may establish the limit during the 
initial performance test or during any other performance test that 
meets the emission limit. We are also proposing to revise the 
definition of ``ladle metallurgy'' by stating that vacuum degassing is 
not included in the definition. We are also proposing changes to Table 
4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which would clarify the 
applicability of certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) to the rule and correct errors in certain entries.

III. Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Emission Limitations?

Sinter Coolers
    The petitioners objected to the PM emission limit for sinter cooler 
stacks (0.03 gr/dscf) for a variety of reasons, including the lack of 
HAP data to support a standard, the de minimus nature of the emissions, 
and the high costs for testing and monitoring. In addition, several 
plants have coolers without stacks that cannot be tested by EPA Method 
5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Petitioners contend that an opacity 
limit would be technically feasible and consistent with State rules.
    We agree with the commenters' concerns that the sinter cooler 
standard should accommodate coolers without stacks. For a sinter cooler 
at a new affected source, we are proposing to revise the current limit 
to apply to emissions from each sinter cooler rather than each sinter 
cooler stack. For sinter coolers at an existing affected source, we are 
proposing to revise the MACT floor based on State rules and new opacity 
data. As discussed below, the data clearly show that a 10 percent limit 
(6-minute average) provides a reasonably accurate picture of the 
performance achieved by the best-performing sources and can be achieved 
on a continuing basis.
    Our review of sinter coolers indicate that some coolers do not have 
stacks, and their design and operation make it impractical to install a 
stack. As promulgated, the final rule does not apply an emission limit 
to coolers without stacks. We reviewed existing State regulations for 
sinter coolers and found that some States have opacity limits which 
provide a practical means for limiting emissions from coolers with and 
without stacks. The MACT floor based on current opacity limits is 
determined by the 10 percent (6-minute average) limit that applies to 
three sinter plants with five sinter coolers in Lake County, Indiana. 
See Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(A)-(B). 
We attempted to obtain opacity data for these sources, but the coolers 
are seldom inspected by the State agency because they are such a low-
emitting emission source. We also attempted to obtain self-monitoring 
data performed by the plants. Data were available for only one of the 
sinter plant coolers. The plant provided data for 366 observations 
covering 13 months. The 99th percentile of the observations was 8 
percent opacity, and only two observations exceeded 10 percent. These 
data indicate that a MACT floor of 10 percent opacity based on current 
State regulations is a reasonable representation of the opacity that 
can be achieved on a continuing basis by sinter coolers. The proposed 
opacity limit would apply to the sinter cooler and any discharge of 
emissions from the cooler; it would not apply to the material transfer 
point where the sinter is removed from the cooler.
Discharges Inside Buildings
    The petitioners explained that at some facilities, control devices 
discharge to the interior of buildings and not to the ambient air. 
Other facilities are able to meet opacity limits by using flame 
suppression and do not have a control device. Facilities with capture 
systems leading to a control device that then discharge within the 
building are in effect no different than those systems used to suppress 
emissions to meet the opacity limit for a building.
    The petitioners are correct that the language of the emission 
limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF (``emissions 
discharged to the atmosphere''), could be construed to include 
emissions discharged inside buildings. This is not our intent. In 
response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing amendments to 
Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that would add a footnote to 
each PM limit for a control device at an existing source stating that 
the limit does not apply to discharges inside a blast furnace 
casthouse, BOPF shop, or building housing the discharge end at a sinter 
plant. The applicable emission limit for these emissions and other 
fugitive emissions that are discharged through the roof monitor is the 
opacity limit for the building cited in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart FFFFF.
Parametric Operating Limit for Electrostatic Precipitators
    The NESHAP establish an operating limit for ESP that control 
emissions from a BOPF. Plant operators are to set the site-specific 
limit based on COMS measurements made during the performance test. The 
commenters contend that variations in BOPF operations make it 
impractical to set a parametric limit based on a short-term performance 
test. In addition, the presence of water vapor or steam, which is 
necessary for optimizing ESP performance, raises issues of 
interferences in COM readings. The commenters support a 20 percent 
opacity limit (6-minute average), consistent with State regulations, 
permit

[[Page 51309]]

requirements, and the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and 
Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (69 FR 55218, September 13, 
2004). The petitioners also stated that exceedance of the parametric 
limit should result in triggering corrective action rather than a 
violation.
    We agree with the petitioners' arguments and are proposing to 
change the ESP operating limit to a fixed opacity level of 10 percent. 
This proposed operating limit would be an hourly average to be 
consistent with other parametric operating limits for control devices. 
We are also proposing that plant operators take corrective action if 
the operating limit for an ESP or venturi scrubber is exceeded. The 
proposed amendments would require plant operators to initiate 
corrective action within 1 hour. If the limit is still exceeded after 
24 hours (i.e., the corrective action was unsuccessful), plant 
operators would need to take additional corrective action. If the 
operating limit is exceeded after 24 more hours, we are proposing that 
the exceedance would be reported as a deviation in the semiannual 
compliance report. These provisions would not apply in the event of a 
malfunction, which would be handled according to the startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction plan.

B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend Monitoring Requirements for Baghouses?

Baghouses Without Exhaust Stacks
    The NESHAP require a bag leak detection system for each baghouse 
used to meet the PM limits. The petitioners point out that EPA's 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, 
September 1997) states that only fabric filters with exhaust stacks are 
covered by this guidance. Some of the emissions sources covered by the 
NESHAP use positive pressure baghouses which do not use an exhaust 
stack. EPA has recognized this problem in other rules.
    We agree with the commenters that bag leak detection systems should 
not be required for fabric filters without exhaust stacks. In response 
to the commenters' concerns, we are proposing to revise the rule to 
clarify that bag leak detection systems are required only for negative 
pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with a stack.
COMS as an Alternative to Bag Leak Detection Systems
    The petitioners also point out that some companies already have 
COMS in place, may be required to install COMS due to State, local, or 
permit requirements, or may opt for COMS instead of bag leak detection 
systems if given the choice. These companies should not be required to 
operate duplicative baghouse monitoring systems.
    We agree that COMS, which provide a direct measure of opacity, are 
certainly a suitable alternative to bag leak detection systems. In 
response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to increase the 
flexibility of the NESHAP by adding COMS as a monitoring alternative. 
This approach is consistent with several other MACT standards, as well 
as the recent amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) 
for electric arc furnaces (70 FR 8523, February 22, 2005). The proposed 
amendments would require that the COMS for baghouses meet the same 
requirements as COMS for ESP. The same corrective action requirements 
for baghouses also would apply. If a bag leak detection system alarm is 
triggered or emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an 
hourly average opacity of 5 percent, the proposed amendments would 
require plants to initiate corrective action within specified time 
limits. We are proposing the 5 percent trigger because it is consistent 
with other MACT standards as well as with the amendments to the NSPS 
for electric arc furnaces cited above.

C. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Requirements for Repeat 
Performance Tests?

    The petitioners asked EPA to amend the rule to reduce the costs 
associated with demonstrating continuous compliance, particularly for 
well-controlled emissions sources. We are proposing to reduce the 
frequency of repeat PM and opacity performance tests from twice each 
permit term to once per term for emission units equipped with a 
baghouse. The reduced frequency would apply to minor emission units 
equipped with baghouses because performance would be continuously 
monitored by a bag leak detection system or COMS.

D. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Definition of ``Ladle 
Metallurgy'' To Exclude Vacuum Degassing?

    Vacuum degassing is an advanced steel refining process to remove 
oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen in a vacuum to produce ultra-low carbon 
steel for certain applications. As such, this process could fall within 
the definition of ``ladle metallurgy.'' The petitioners argue that EPA 
did not acknowledge the fundamental control technology differences for 
vacuum degassing operations compared to ladle metallurgy operations 
which are typically controlled by baghouses. They explain that many 
BOPF shops have vacuum degassing facilities and all use steam ejector/
condenser systems; baghouses are not suitable control systems because 
of the inherent moisture in the gas downstream of the steam ejectors. 
Although PM emissions are low, these facilities would not be able to 
achieve the limit for new or existing ladle metallurgy operations.
    We agree with the petitioners that the definition of ``ladle 
metallurgy'' (a secondary steelmaking process that is performed in a 
ladle after initial refining in a BOPF to adjust the chemical and/or 
mechanical properties of steel) could be interpreted to include vacuum 
degassing. In response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing 
to revise the definition of ``ladle metallurgy'' to specifically 
exclude vacuum degassing.

IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

    The proposed amendments would not affect the level of emissions 
control required by the existing NESHAP or the nonair, health, 
environmental, and energy impacts. However, the costs of implementing 
the existing rule would be reduced in future years. For example, the 
proposed reduction in subsequent performance tests for an emissions 
source equipped with a baghouse would reduce the nationwide cost of PM 
testing over the next 5 years from $270,000/year to $180,000/year, a 
savings of $90,000/year.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 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;

[[Page 51310]]

    (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 these proposed 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

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The proposed amendments provide additional flexibility through revised 
requirements for monitoring operational parameters which would not 
increase the existing information collection burden. Other proposed 
amendments, such as the reduction in subsequent PM performance tests 
for certain emissions sources, is expected to decrease the information 
collection burden in future years. However, OMB has previously approved 
the information collection requirements contained in the existing 
regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 
control number 2060-0517, EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) 
number 2003.02. A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be obtained from 
Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at Auby.Susan@epa.gov, or 
by calling (202) 566-1672.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 63 are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small 
business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations 
at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district, or special 
district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed 
amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The proposed amendments would not impose any requirements on 
small entities. There are no small entities in the regulated industry. 
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

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 the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 to 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 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 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 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.
    EPA has determined that the proposed amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In 
addition, EPA has determined that the proposed 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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (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'' are 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.''

[[Page 51311]]

    The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They 
would 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 
plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments. In the spirit of 
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA 
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' The proposed amendments do 
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
They would not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 
on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 
13175. No tribal governments own plants subject to the MACT standards 
for integrated iron and steel manufacturing. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to today's proposed amendments. EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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, 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 EPA.
    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 proposed amendments are 
not subject to the Executive Order because they are based on control 
technology and not on health or safety risks.

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

    The proposed 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

    Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, Sec.  12(d) 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards 
(VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are 
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through 
OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable 
VCS.
    The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: August 23, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FFFFF--[AMENDED]

    2. Section 63.7790 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7790  What emission limitations must I meet?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) For each electrostatic precipitator applied to emissions from a 
BOPF, you must maintain the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting 
the control device at or below 10 percent.
* * * * *
    3. Section 63.7800 is amended by:
    a. Revising the second sentence in the introductory text of 
paragraph (b);
    b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(4);
    c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi);
    d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(7); and
    e. Adding new paragraphs (b)(5) and (b)(6) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7800  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Each plan must address the elements in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) Corrective action procedures for baghouses equipped with bag 
leak detection systems or continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). 
In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or 
emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average 
opacity of 5 percent, you must initiate corrective action to determine 
the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective 
action to correct the cause of the problem within 24 hours of the 
alarm, and complete the corrective action as soon as practicable. 
Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to:
* * * * *
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.
    (5) Corrective action procedures for venturi scrubbers equipped 
with continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS). In the event a 
venturi scrubber exceeds the operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(2), 
you must take corrective actions consistent with your site-specific 
monitoring plan in accordance with Sec.  63.7831(a).
    (6) Corrective action procedures for electrostatic precipitators 
equipped with COMS. In the event an electrostatic precipitator exceeds 
the operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(3), you must take corrective 
actions consistent with your site-specific monitoring plan in 
accordance with Sec.  63.7831(a).
* * * * *
    4. Section 63.7821 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 51312]]

    (a) You must conduct subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
compliance with all applicable PM and opacity limits in Table 1 to this 
subpart at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of 
this section.
    (b) For each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and each 
emissions unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse, 
you must conduct subsequent performance tests no less frequently than 
twice (at mid-term and renewal) during each term of your title V 
operating permit.
    (c) For each emissions unit equipped with a baghouse, you must 
conduct subsequent performance tests no less frequently than once 
during each term of your title V operating permit.
    (d) For sources without a title V operating permit, you must 
conduct subsequent performance tests every 2.5 years.
    5. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising the introductory text of 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7823  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

* * * * *
    (c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter 
plant, a sinter plant discharge end, or a blast furnace casthouse:
* * * * *
    6. Section 63.7824 is amended by:
    a. Adding a second sentence to the introductory text of paragraph 
(b);
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
    c. Removing paragraph (c);
    d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c) 
through (f);
    e. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (c) 
and newly designated paragraph (c)(3);
    f. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph 
(d); and
    g. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (e) 
and newly designated paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7824  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
establish and demonstrate initial compliance with operating limits?

* * * * *
    (b) * * * You may establish the parametric monitoring limit during 
the initial performance test or during any other performance test run 
that meets the emission limit.
    (1) Using the CPMS required in Sec.  63.7830(c), measure and record 
the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate during each run of the 
particulate matter performance test.
* * * * *
    (c) You may change the operating limits for a capture system or 
venturi scrubber if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for a control 
device or capture system.
    (d) For each sinter plant subject to the operating limit for the 
oil content of the sinter plant feedstock in Sec.  63.7790(d)(1), you 
must demonstrate initial compliance according to the procedures in 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) To demonstrate initial compliance with the alternative 
operating limit for volatile organic compound emissions from the sinter 
plant windbox exhaust stream in Sec.  63.7790(d)(2), follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (e)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (4) Continue the sampling and analysis procedures in paragraphs 
(e)(1) through (3) of this section for 30 consecutive days.
* * * * *
    7. Section 63.7825 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
    b. Removing paragraph (a)(4); and
    c. Revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7825  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) * * *
    (2) For each capture system subject to the operating limit in Sec.  
63.7790(b)(1), you have established appropriate site-specific operating 
limit(s) and have a record of the operating parameter data measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7824(a)(1); and
    (3) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.7790(b)(2), you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7824(b).
    (b) For each existing or new sinter plant subject to the operating 
limit in Sec.  63.7790(d)(1), you have demonstrated initial compliance 
if the 30-day rolling average of the oil content of the feedstock, 
measured during the initial performance test in accordance with Sec.  
63.7824(d) is no more than 0.02 percent. For each existing or new 
sinter plant subject to the alternative operating limit in Sec.  
63.7790(d)(2), you have demonstrated initial compliance if the 30-day 
rolling average of the volatile organic compound emissions from the 
sinter plant windbox exhaust stream, measured during the initial 
performance test in accordance with Sec.  63.7824(e) is no more than 
0.2 lb/ton of sinter produced.
* * * * *
    8. Section 63.7826 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7826  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Prepared the control device operation and maintenance plan 
according to the requirements of Sec.  63.7800(b), including a 
preventative maintenance schedule and, as applicable, detailed 
descriptions of the corrective action procedures for baghouses and 
other control devices;
* * * * *
    9. Section 63.7830 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), 
(e)(1), and (e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7830  What are my monitoring requirements?

* * * * *
    (b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you 
must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section 
for each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission limit in 
Table 1 of this subpart. You must conduct inspections of each baghouse 
according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
    (1) Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system 
according to Sec.  63.7831(f) and monitor the relative change in 
particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7832; or
    (2) If you do not install and operate a bag leak detection system, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a COMS according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7831(h) and monitor the hourly average opacity 
of emissions exiting each control device stack according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7832.
    (3) A bag leak detection system and COMS are not required for a 
baghouse that meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) 
of this section.

[[Page 51313]]

    (i) The baghouse is a positive pressure baghouse and is not 
equipped with exhaust gas stacks; and
    (ii) The baghouse was installed before August 30, 2005.
    (4) You must conduct inspections of each baghouse at the specified 
frequencies according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) 
through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in 
the manual.
    (ii) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or other means of ensuring the proper functioning of 
removal mechanisms.
    (iii) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day.
    (iv) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology.
    (v) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means.
    (vi) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices.
    (vii) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks.
    (viii) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion 
through quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or 
equivalent means.
* * * * *
    (d) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(3), you must install, operate, and 
maintain a COMS according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7831(h) and 
monitor the hourly average opacity of emissions exiting each control 
device stack according to the requirements in Sec.  63.7832.
    (e) * * *
    (1) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the oil 
content of the feedstock for each operating day using the procedures in 
Sec.  63.7824(d); or
    (2) Compute and record the 30-day rolling average of the volatile 
organic compound emissions (lbs/ton of sinter) for each operating day 
using the procedures in Sec.  63.7824(e).
    10. Section 63.7831 is amended by:
    a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), revising 
paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6), and adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and 
(a)(8);
    b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f); and
    c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h) and revising 
paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7831  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) For each CPMS required in Sec.  63.7830, you must develop and 
make available for inspection upon request by the permitting authority 
a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (8) of this section.
* * * * *
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d);
    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec.  63.10(c), paragraph (e)(1), and 
paragraph (e)(2)(i);
    (7) Corrective action procedures you will follow in the event a 
venturi scrubber exceeds the operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(2); 
and
    (8) Corrective action procedures you will follow in the event an 
electrostatic precipitator exceeds the operating limit in Sec.  
63.7790(b)(3).
* * * * *
    (f) For each baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system 
according to Sec.  63.7830(b)(1), you must install, operate, and 
maintain the bag leak detection system according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(3) and each baghouse equipped with 
a COMS according to Sec.  63.7830(b)(2), you must install, operate, and 
maintain each COMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) COMS data must be reduced to 6-minute averages as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(g)(2) and to hourly averages where required by this subpart 
FFFFF.
    11. Section 63.7833 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c);
    b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) and adding new 
paragraph (d)(4);
    c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e), revising 
paragraph (e)(1), and adding new paragraph (e)(3);
    d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i); and
    e. Adding new paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7833  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

* * * * *
    (c) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission 
limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) as 
applicable, and paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section:
    (1) For a baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system, 
operating and maintaining each bag leak detection system according to 
Sec.  63.7831(f) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements. If you increase or decrease the 
sensitivity of the bag leak detection system beyond the limits 
specified in Sec.  63.7831(f)(6), you must include a copy of the 
required written certification by a responsible official in the next 
semiannual compliance report.
    (2) For a baghouse equipped with a COMS, operating and maintaining 
each COMS and reducing the COMS data according to Sec.  63.7831(h).
    (3) Inspecting each baghouse according to the requirements in Sec.  
63.7830(b)(4) and maintaining all records needed to document 
conformance with these requirements.
    (4) Maintaining records of the time you initiated corrective action 
in the event of a bag leak detection system alarm or when the hourly 
average opacity exceeded 5 percent, the corrective action(s) taken, and 
the date on which corrective action was completed.
    (d) For each venturi scrubber subject to the operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate in Sec.  63.7790(b)(2), you 
must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements of 
paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section:
* * * * *
    (4) If the hourly average pressure drop or scrubber water flow rate 
is below the operating limits, you must follow the corrective action 
procedures in paragraph (g) of this section.
    (e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity 
operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) 
of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the hourly average opacity of emissions no higher 
than 10 percent; and
* * * * *
    (3) If the hourly average opacity of emissions exceeds 10 percent, 
you must follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (g) of 
this section.

[[Page 51314]]

    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of the 
percent oil content for each operating day according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec.  63.7824(d);
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Computing and recording the 30-day rolling average of the 
volatile organic compound emissions for each operating day according to 
the performance test procedures in Sec.  63.7824(e);
* * * * *
    (g) If the hourly average pressure drop or water flow rate for a 
venturi scrubber or hourly average opacity for an electrostatic 
precipitator exceeds the operating limit, you must follow the 
procedures in paragraphs (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of 
the exceedance within 1 hour. During any period of corrective action, 
you must continue to monitor and record all required operating 
parameters for equipment that remains in operation. Within 24 hours of 
the exceedance, you must measure and record the hourly average 
operating parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective 
action was taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the 
applicable operating limit, then the corrective action was successful, 
and the emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating 
limit.
    (2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (g)(1) 
of this section was not successful, you must complete additional 
corrective action within the next 24 hours (48 hours from the time of 
the exceedance). During any period of corrective action, you must 
continue to monitor and record all required operating parameters for 
equipment that remains in operation. After this second 24 hour period, 
you must again measure and record the hourly average operating 
parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective action was 
taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the applicable 
operating limit, then the corrective action was successful, and the 
emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating limit.
    (3) For purposes of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section, in 
the case of an exceedance of the hourly average opacity operating limit 
for an electrostatic precipitator, measurements of the hourly average 
opacity based on visible emission observations in accordance with 
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) may be taken to evaluate the 
effectiveness of corrective action.
    (4) If the second attempt at corrective action required in 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section was not successful, you must report 
the exceedance as a deviation in your next semiannual compliance report 
according to Sec.  63.7841(b).
    12. Section 63.7834 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7834  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each capture system and control device subject to an 
operating limit in Sec.  63.7790(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in Sec.  
63.7800(b) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 
of this section:
    (1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems and initiating 
corrective action according to Sec.  63.7800(b)(1) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements;
    (2) Performing preventative maintenance according to Sec.  
63.7800(b)(2) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements;
    (3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a baghouse 
equipped with a bag leak detection system or COMS according to Sec.  
63.7800(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements, including the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on 
which corrective action was completed.
    (4) Initiating and completing corrective action for a venturi 
scrubber equipped with a CPMS or an electrostatic precipitator equipped 
with a COMS according to Sec.  63.7833(g) and recording all information 
needed to document conformance with these requirements, including the 
time you initiated corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken 
within the first 24 hours according to Sec.  63.7833(g)(1) and whether 
they were successful, the corrective action(s) taken within the second 
24 hours according to Sec.  63.7833(g)(2) and whether they were 
successful, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
* * * * *
    13. Section 63.7835 is amended by revising the first sentence in 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7835  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. Except as provided in Sec.  63.7833(g), you must 
report each instance in which you did not meet each emission limitation 
in Sec.  63.7790 that applies to you. * * *
* * * * *
    14. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  63.7851  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under Sec.  
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and paragraph (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90, except 
for approval of an alternative method for the oil content of the sinter 
plant feedstock or volatile organic compound measurements for the 
sinter plant windbox exhaust stream stack as provided in Sec.  
63.7824(f).
* * * * *
    15. Section 63.7852 is amended by revising the definition of term 
``Ladle metallurgy'' to read as follows:


Sec.  63.7852  What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Ladle metallurgy means a secondary steelmaking process that is 
performed typically in a ladle after initial refining in a basic oxygen 
process furnace to adjust or amend the chemical and/or mechanical 
properties of steel. This definition does not include vacuum degassing.
* * * * *
    16. Table 1 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising 
entries 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11; and by revising the footnotes to 
read as follows:

[[Page 51315]]



                        Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.--Emission and Opacity Limits
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  For . . .                            You must comply with each of the following . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter   a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
 plant.                                        that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a
                                               flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf
                                               \1\ \2\ and
                                              b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
                                               secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or
                                               structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater
                                               than 20 percent (6-minute average).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter   You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any
 plant.                                        emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute
                                               plant. average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plan..  You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
                                               that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
7. Each casthouse at an existing blast        a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases
 furnace.                                      that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter