National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities, 39579-39592 [06-6174]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 134 (Thursday, July 13, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39579-39592]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6174]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083; FRL-8196-6]
RIN 2060-AE48


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on July 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business 
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 
the Air & Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0083, 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. Phil Mulrine, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, 
Metals and Minerals Group (D243-02), Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-5289, fax number: (919) 
541-3207, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NAICS code    Examples of regulated
             Category                  \1\              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.

    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 is 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 
Facilities). 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 final action will also be available on 
the Worldwide Web through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). 
Following signature, a copy of the final 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.
    Judicial Review. 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. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by September 11, 2006. Under section 
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to the final rule amendments 
that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for 
public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under 
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by the final 
rule amendments may not be challenged separately in any civil or 
criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
    Organization of This Document. The information presented in this 
preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary of the Final Amendments
III. Impacts of the Final Amendments
IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed Amendments
    A. Equivalency of Opacity Limit
    B. Monitoring Requirements
    C. Applicability to Sinter Coolers Without Stacks
    D. Applicability to Discharges Inside Buildings
    E. Operating Limit
    F. Corrective Action
    G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
    H. Applicability of MACT Standards
    I. Subsequent Performance Tests for Baghouses
    J. Opacity Observations for Sinter Cooler
    K. Compliance Date
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
    J. Congressional Review 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 CAA by requiring all 
major sources to meet emission standards for

[[Page 39580]]

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 publication 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, D.C. Cir.). The petitioners raised the following issues:
     Failing to respond to substantive industry comments 
questioning the definitions, subcategorization, control technologies 
identified, emission standards, testing and monitoring, and other 
aspects of the proposed rule;
     Failing 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 to adequately 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 industry petitioners entered into a settlement agreement 
whereby EPA agreed to sign a notice proposing certain 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). These amendments were 
proposed on August 30, 2005 (70 FR 51306). Three organizations 
commented on the proposed amendments during the 60-day comment period 
which ended on October 31, 2005. EPA and the petitioners anticipate 
that the final amendments to the NESHAP will resolve the petitioners' 
concerns.

II. Summary of the Final Amendments

    The final amendments revise the applicability of the emission 
limits for sinter cooler stacks at new and existing sinter plants. The 
revised limits apply to each sinter cooler instead of to each sinter 
cooler stack. The final amendments also establish a 10 percent opacity 
limit for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant instead of the 
particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.03 grains per dry standard 
cubic feet (gr/dscf). In response to comments, we have added a new 
compliance date for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant and 
require compliance by January 13, 2007. We have also added a provision 
to the opacity test procedures which describes the general direction an 
observer should take for observations of uncovered portions of sinter 
coolers.
    The final amendments add a new footnote to Table 1 of subpart FFFFF 
to clarify 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 
basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop because these discharges are 
subject to opacity limits. In response to comments, we have revised the 
proposed footnote to clarify that it applies only to control devices 
installed before August 30, 2005.
    The frequency for conducting subsequent performance tests has been 
changed from twice each permit term to once each permit term for 
emission units equipped with a baghouse. Repeat performance tests are 
still 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 each affected source without a title V 
operating permit.
    The final amendments also revise the operating limit in 40 CFR 
63.7790(b)(3) for an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls 
emissions from a BOPF. The revised operating limit requires the plant 
owner or operator to maintain the hourly average opacity of emissions 
from the control device 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 final amendments 
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 COMS is not 
required for a positive-pressure baghouse not equipped with exhaust gas 
stacks that was installed before August 30, 2005.
    The final amendments revise the requirements for operation and 
maintenance (O&M) plans. The corrective action procedures in 40 CFR 
63.7800(b)(4) are expanded to apply to baghouses equipped with COMS in 
addition to those with bag leak detection systems. Plants must 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.
    Corrective action procedures also apply to 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 must take corrective action consistent 
with their site-specific monitoring plan. New provisions added to 40 
CFR 63.7833 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 is in 
compliance with the applicable operating limit. If the initial 
corrective action is not successful, additional corrective action is 
required within the next 24 hours. Plants must re-measure the operating 
parameter(s) and if the corrective action is successful, the emission 
unit is in compliance with the applicable operating limit. If the 
second attempt at corrective action is not successful, the plant must 
report the exceedance as a deviation in the next semiannual compliance 
report.
    The final amendments also 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 have also revised the definition of ``ladle 
metallurgy'' by stating that vacuum degassing is not included in the 
definition. The final amendments also make clarifying changes to 
certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements cited in 
Table 4 to subpart FFFFF (Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart FFFFF) and correct errors in certain entries.

[[Page 39581]]

III. Impacts of the Final Amendments

    The final amendments do 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 will be reduced in future years. For example, the reduction in 
subsequent performance tests for an emissions source equipped with a 
baghouse will 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.

IV. Response to Comments on the Proposed Amendments

A. Equivalency of Opacity Limit

    Comment: One commenter asked if the opacity limit for sinter 
coolers would achieve the same emission level, be equally protective of 
public health, and measure the same pollutants and the same levels of 
emissions as the PM limit of 0.03 gr/dscf?
    Response: The opacity limit is a better representation of the MACT 
floor and will ensure that all sinter coolers perform at the MACT level 
of control or better. The limit will achieve lower emission levels (and 
presumably be more protective of public health) than the concentration 
limit of 0.03 gr/dscf in the current rule because it will apply to all 
sinter coolers, not just to those with stacks. However, we did not 
perform a risk analysis and evaluate protection of public health for 
the MACT standard because residual risk will be assessed no later than 
8 years following the promulgation of the MACT standard (section 
112(f)(2) of the CAA). See Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976, 990 (D.C. 
Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.) (EPA is not to consider risk when promulgating 
section 112(d) MACT standards because that is the province of the 
residual risk analysis to be conducted under section 112(f)). The 
opacity limit and concentration limit are a measure of the same 
pollutant, PM, which is a surrogate for particulate metal HAP.

B. Monitoring Requirements

    Comment: One commenter stated that the reason for changing to an 
opacity limit was the inability to measure PM emissions from sinter 
coolers without stacks. The commenter expressed concerne that the MACT 
technology is not being achieved for monitoring or measuring emissions 
and asked if this would be a problem if a facility were required to 
modernize its monitoring equipment to implement MACT. The commenter 
recommended that a MACT standard be implemented for monitoring to 
ensure the best monitoring technology is in place.
    Response: MACT standards are based on the level of control achieved 
by the best-performing sources and a further evaluation of what further 
reductions could be achieved considering cost, energy, and nonair 
environmental impacts. Continuous monitoring requirements are not 
determined by a MACT floor or beyond-the-floor analysis. The continuous 
monitoring requirements are selected after consideration of many 
factors, such as the type of control device, source characteristics, 
and how to ensure that the MACT emission limit is being met on a 
continuous basis. The standard requires monitoring of capture and 
control systems to ensure they are operating properly, and these 
monitoring requirements are provided in the section of the rule 
entitled ``Continuous Compliance Requirements'' (40 CFR 63.7830 through 
63.7835). See also Sierra Club, 353 F.3d at 991 (CAA section 114(a)(3) 
does not require continuous monitoring). For fugitive emissions that by 
definition are not emitted through stacks, opacity observations by EPA 
Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) are the most effective means of 
monitoring to ensure compliance. We are not aware of a monitoring 
technology that is better than Method 9 for fugitive emissions.

C. Applicability to Sinter Coolers Without Stacks

    Comment: One commenter believed that the proposed amendments did 
not apply an emission limit to sinter coolers without stacks.
    Response: The commenter misunderstood the proposed rule amendments. 
The proposed amendments applied a MACT emission limit of 10 percent 
opacity to coolers without stacks.

D. Applicability to Discharges Inside Buildings

    Comment: One commenter pointed out that the proposed amendments did 
not apply to discharges inside buildings and asked if the health of 
workers would be adequately protected from these emissions. Does this 
open a loophole that allows a facility to discharge inside a building 
to avoid an emission limit? What if the air discharged inside a 
building is emitted to the ambient air through the ventilation system?
    Response: The capture and control systems reduce worker exposure to 
fugitive emissions that occur within the building. The air discharged 
inside the building exits through the building's roof monitor. The 
applicable emission limit for emissions from the building is the 
opacity limit, and the air discharged inside the building is subject to 
this limit. However, we agree that control devices installed on or 
after proposal of the final amendments (August 30, 2005) should be 
designed and operated to meet the PM emissions limit, and we are 
including this provision in the final amendments.

E. Operating Limit

    Comment: One commenter asked if the hourly average operating limit 
for monitoring electrostatic precipitators (ESP) included time when the 
facility is not operating. If so, the facility could average in zeros 
to meet the hourly limit. The commenter stated that changing from a 6-
minute average to an hourly average did not appear to be protective of 
public health.
    Response: The hourly average does not include time when the 
facility is not operating because BOPF shops contain two steelmaking 
furnaces (a few have three furnaces), and at least one of these 
furnaces is almost always at some point in the steel production cycle. 
For example, if one furnace finishes a steelmaking ``heat'', the second 
furnace begins a heat while the first furnace is being tapped. The 
exception is during a shutdown, and in that case, parametric monitoring 
is not required or relevant.
    As we stated earlier, residual risk remaining after the MACT 
standard and the extent to which further risk-based controls may be 
needed to protect public health with an ample margin of safety will be 
assessed 8 years following the promulgation of the MACT standard.

F. Corrective Action

    Comment: One commenter said that the proposed corrective action 
procedures for ESP and baghouses are flawed because they do not require 
the facility to correct the problem and only require they report it in 
their semiannual compliance report. The authorized agency should be 
notified immediately of the violation. Otherwise, the agency may not 
know about the violation until 6 months later. In general, EPA should 
require monthly reports instead of semiannual reports so that the 
implementing agency and public know much sooner when a violation 
occurs, and an appropriate remedy can be instigated much sooner.
    Response: This comment is beyond the scope of the proposed 
amendments. We did not propose any changes to the NESHAP that affected 
the semiannual reporting requirements or otherwise reopened the issue 
of the

[[Page 39582]]

appropriateness of those requirements; consequently, they are not 
subject to public comment. In the event any response is considered 
necessary, however, we note that the semiannual reporting requirements 
are consistent with Sec.  63.10(e)(3) of the General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A), and we have no reason to impose more stringent 
requirements for the integrated iron and steel industry.
    For more background, the commenter should examine our responses to 
public comments on semiannual reporting requirements in our final rule 
amendments to the General Provisions that reduced recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements (64 FR 7458, February 12, 1999). We explained 
that:

    * * * EPA's experience over the past ten years with a variety of 
NSPS and NESHAP rulemakings covering industries of all types 
suggests that semi-annual reporting provides sufficiently timely 
information to both ensure compliance and enable adequate 
enforcement of applicable requirements, while imposing less burden 
on the affected industry than would quarterly reporting.

It is in the facility's interest to ensure that the corrective actions 
are successful to avoid penalties and fines. The facility may be found 
in violation and subject to penalties and fines if the corrective 
actions continue to be unsuccessful. A continued pattern of non-
compliance may be considered in determining the magnitude of penalties.

G. Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions

    Comment: One commenter stated that the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) requirements were not protective enough because they 
allow a facility to craft a plan such that an SSM event is not an 
exceedance as long as the facility's response is consistent with the 
SSM plan. Furthermore, the facility should not be allowed to modify the 
SSM plan without prior Administrator approval.
    Response: This comment is also beyond the scope of the proposed 
amendments. We did not propose, solicit comment on, or otherwise reopen 
this issue. If any response is considered necessary, however, we note 
that the SSM requirements come directly from the NESHAP General 
Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, and we have no reason to implement 
different requirements for this standard.
    For further information, the commenter can consult our proposed 
amendments to the General Provisions (70 FR 43992, July 29, 2005). In 
that notice we discuss the ``general duty clause'' in the General 
Provisions and note that:

    * * * following the SSM plan itself is no ``safe harbor'' for 
sources if the plan is found to be deficient. That is, a source 
could not use ``following the plan'' as a defense for an inadequate 
program to minimize emissions.

    With respect to review of the plan or revisions, we stated:

    Review of each SSM plan, from each facility, by the permitting 
authority, for adequacy prior to implementation is neither 
reasonable nor necessary. There are thousands of sources required to 
develop SSM plans, and each plan is tailored to its source. Some 
plans are closely tied and cross referenced to other operating 
materials at the source. Many, and perhaps most, plans contain CBI. 
The burden on the permitting authorities to review every plan would 
be enormous.

    However, it is important to note that the Administrator (or an 
authorized permitting authority) may at any time require a facility 
owner or operator to submit a copy of an SSM plan.

H. Applicability of MACT Standards

    Comment: One commenter asked if MACT standards were still in place 
with the proposed change that requires bag leak detection systems only 
for baghouses with stacks.
    Response: The MACT standards are still in place for all affected 
sources operating with baghouses. All such sources are subject to a 
MACT PM emissions limit expressed in gr/dscf. In addition, all 
baghouses are subject to extensive inspection and monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  63.7831(b)(4). The requirements applying to all 
baghouses include daily monitoring of pressure drop across each 
baghouse cell, weekly visual inspections to confirm dust is removed 
from hoppers, daily checks of compressed air supply for pulse-jet 
baghouses, monitoring cleaning cycles, monthly checks of the bag 
cleaning mechanism and bag tension, and inspections to assess physical 
integrity and fan wear or corrosion.

I. Subsequent Performance Tests for Baghouses

    Comment: One commenter objected to the change of requiring 
performance tests every 2.5 years to every 5 years for baghouses. The 
reasoning that bag leak detection systems are in place is not adequate 
justification because they may not be working properly. The commenter 
also asked EPA to clarify what a ``minor'' emission unit means and 
asked if major units would be affected by the reduction in the 
frequency of performance testing.
    Response: A performance test provides a ``snap shot'' of 
performance, usually as the average of three 1-hour runs. However, we 
require continuous monitoring of the control device, and in this case, 
bag leak detectors provide assurance of proper operation on a 
continuous basis. Section 63.7831(f) of the rule provides detailed 
requirements for the proper installation, operation, and maintenance of 
bag leak detectors. Moreover, the monitoring requirements in Sec.  
63.7830(b)(4) discussed earlier include inspections and other 
monitoring in addition to the bag leak detection system. The 
combination of bag leak detectors and the extensive inspection and 
monitoring requirements for baghouses provide more assurance of proper 
operation than would more frequent snapshot performance tests. 
Consequently, we concluded that performance testing more frequently 
than once per permit term for these baghouses was not necessary. This 
testing frequency is consistent with many existing operating permits.
    We used the term ``minor'' in a qualitative way (i.e., it is not a 
term defined in the rule) to describe baghouses applied to ancillary 
processes that do not generate the large volume of emissions associated 
with primary production processes such as the sinter plant windboxes 
and steelmaking furnaces. The ancillary processes include hot metal 
transfer, desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy.

J. Opacity Observations of Sinter Cooler

    Comment: In principle, the commenter supports EPA's decision to 
revise the emission limit for sinter coolers from a grain loading limit 
to an opacity limit because some sinter coolers are open to the ambient 
air, with their emissions to the atmosphere being fugitive in nature, 
rather than through a stack. However, the commenter feels that design 
considerations at some sinter coolers that do not use a stack make 
accurate opacity observations problematic. At the commenter's sinter 
plant, air is forced upward through the cooler bed, a donut-shaped ring 
approximately 5 feet wide and 50 feet in diameter at its outside edge. 
Emissions rise upward from the bed and into the atmosphere. The 
commenter contends that a visible emission observer would have a 
difficult time accurately assessing opacity due to overlapping or 
mingling of other plumes. These plumes are primarily from the discharge 
end of the sinter strand, from material handling sources, and from the 
side of the cooler that is directly opposite of the side from which the 
observations are recorded. Similarly, the commenter feels that heat 
waves from one side of the cooler can interfere with the accuracy of 
opacity readings made from the other side of the cooler. The commenter 
argues that these conditions can impart a positive bias to the 
readings, which could raise the

[[Page 39583]]

potential for exceedances of the opacity standard. The commenter 
requests language in the final rule that provides for a work practice/
operational standard in lieu of the opacity standard.
    Response: Representatives of EPA and the State agency visited the 
commenter's sinter plant and evaluated the commenter's concerns 
regarding an observer's ability to perform accurate visible emissions 
observations. We agree that performing visible emissions observations 
at this source is more problematic than at most sources. First, 
performing observations from ground level at this source does not give 
the observer an adequate view of all potential emission sources in 
proximity to the cooler. An observer could mistake emissions from the 
sinter strand discharge end for cooler emissions, and therefore, 
readings should be taken from some elevated level. We identified at 
least two elevated positions at this source from which observations can 
be made. However, while there are a number of platforms that are 
adjacent to the cooler that are accessible for this purpose, we 
acknowledge that the east platform is situated such that intense heat 
from the bed is likely to disqualify this position as a safety matter.
    Regarding the commenter's concerns related to emissions from one 
side of the cooler interfering with the accurate observations of 
emissions from the opposite side of the cooler, we concluded that this 
issue is adequately addressed by existing rule language and guidance 
for EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). While there can be 
emissions from the feed end of the cooler, these emissions will 
decrease essentially to zero a short distance from the feed end. When 
no emissions are visible from the opposite side of the cooler, Method 9 
observations of the sinter cooler can occur without multiple plume 
distortion. As a regulatory matter, reading through multiple plumes is 
essentially prohibited by section 2.1 of Method 9. Therefore, if any 
visible emissions arise from the discharge side of the sinter cooler 
during the Method 9 test that cause an interference with sinter cooler 
readings, the test must be discontinued.
    A similar issue is the potential interference from heat waves. We 
agree that heat waves can have an influence (positive bias) on 
readings, depending on their intensity and relative location to the 
observer and the plume that is being read. Additional language in 
section 2.1 of Method 9 provides direction on how this should be 
addressed: ``The qualified observer shall stand at a distance 
sufficient to provide a clear view of the emissions * * *''. This 
language dictates that the observer must be far enough from the heat 
waves and at such an angle to ensure that observations are made at such 
a height as to remove any potential interference. We feel that this 
language also addresses the commenter's concerns regarding other 
potential emission sources. Consequently, we do not see a need to 
change the rule language to address this issue.
    We decided that two other issues raised by the commenter during the 
site visit warrant discussion. One issue is that Method 9 does not 
address in what general direction an observer should be viewing an 
emission source of this type. If the observer is looking tangentially 
along the arc of the cooler, readings would have a positive bias 
compared to the observer looking approximately perpendicular to the 
tangent of the bed generally toward the center of the cooler. We have 
added language to the rule to clarify this. The second issue relates to 
potential positive bias due to luminescence of the plume and background 
used. This is mentioned in the preamble to Method 9 as exerting an 
influence on the appearance of a plume. Numerous structures near the 
sinter plant cooler can cause the plume being observed and/or the 
background to be in shadows. Consistent with Method 9, observers of 
sinter coolers should not read opacity when shadows may influence 
observations. Because this issue is discussed in the preamble to Method 
9, we decided that the language in the current rule should not be 
changed.
    We have considered the commenter's request for the option of an 
alternative work practice or operating standard, in lieu of an opacity 
standard. However, there are too many process variables that can affect 
emissions from the cooler to provide for a meaningful alternative. 
These variables include the types of raw materials used in the 
sintering process, bed depth, bed speed, uniformity of the surface of 
the bed, fan speed, and the condition of the grates, windbox ductwork, 
and fan. Changing just one of these variables may be insufficient to 
affect cooler emissions. Changes to a combination of variables may be 
needed at one point in time, where a different combination may be 
needed at another point in time.

K. Compliance Date

    Comment: Sinter coolers without stacks were not regulated under the 
original PM limit, but would be regulated for the first time under the 
proposed opacity limit. Two commenters requested a 3-year extension 
from the compliance date of the original rule (May 22, 2006). This 
would allow time to design a compliance strategy, evaluate control 
options, and install controls that may be necessary to comply with the 
new standard.
    Response: We agree that the 10 percent opacity limit is a new 
standard for sinter coolers. We concluded that it is permissible for us 
to establish a new compliance date for the sinter cooler standard, 
i.e., a compliance date not tied to the compliance date of the previous 
standard for sinter coolers in the original rule. See CAA section 
112(i)(3)(A) (which ties compliance dates to the effective dates of 
``any emissions standard'' promulgated under section 112, and so does 
not tie the date to an initially adopted standard). However, compliance 
is still to be as expeditious as possible. It is our engineering 
judgment that 6 months from date of publication is a reasonable time 
for compliance for most sources because most sources will not have to 
install additional controls. It is possible that individual sources may 
require more time to comply and may petition EPA for more time pursuant 
to the case-by-case extension mechanism in CAA section 112(i)(3)(B), 
which is codified in 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(i). This provision allows 
individual sources to submit compliance extension requests of up to 1 
year where the extension is necessary for the installation of controls.

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;
    (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

[[Page 39584]]

    (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

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
The final amendments provide additional flexibility through revised 
requirements for monitoring operational parameters which would not 
increase the existing information collection burden. Other changes, 
such as the reduction in subsequent PM performance tests for certain 
emissions sources, are 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, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., 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

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis in connection with these final rule amendments.
    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 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 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. The final rule amendments will not impose any requirements on 
small entities. None of the regulated integrated iron and steel 
manufacturing facilities are small businesses.

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 final rule 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 final rule amendments are 
not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In 
addition, EPA has determined 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.

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.''
    The final rule 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 final rule amendments.

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

[[Page 39585]]

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 final rule amendments do not have 
tribal implications, 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 the final rule amendments.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that 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 final rule 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 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 of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 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 by one or more VCS 
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
    The final rule amendments do not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 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. EPA will submit a report containing the 
final 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 publication of the final amendments in the 
Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after 
it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The final amendments are 
effective on July 13, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: July 6, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart FFFFF--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 63.7783 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.7783  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation and operation and maintenance requirement in 
this subpart that applies to you by the dates specified in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) No later than May 22, 2006 for all emissions sources at an 
existing affected source except for a sinter cooler at an existing 
sinter plant.
    (2) No later than January 13, 2007 for a sinter cooler at an 
existing sinter plant.
* * * * *

0
3. 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.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.7800 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(4) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraph (b)(4)(vi);
0
d. Redesignating paragraph (b)(5) as (b)(7); and
0
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

[[Page 39586]]

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).
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.7821 is revised to read as follows:
    (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.

0
6. Section 63.7823 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (e) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in 
Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter 
plant:
    (1) Using a certified observer, determine the opacity of emissions 
according to Method 9 in appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
    (2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute block averages.
    (3) Make visible emission observations of uncovered portions of 
sinter plant coolers with the observer's line of sight generally in the 
direction of the center of the cooler.

0
7. Section 63.7824 is amended by:
0
a. Adding a second sentence to the end of paragraph (b) introductory 
text;
0
b. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
c. Removing paragraph (c);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (g) as paragraphs (c) through 
(f);
0
e. Revising newly designated paragraph (c) introductory text and newly 
designated paragraph (c)(3);
0
f. Revising newly designated paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
g. Revising newly designated paragraph (e) introductory text 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.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 63.7825 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(4); and
0
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.
* * * * *

0
9. 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;
* * * * *

0
10. 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 to 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

[[Page 39587]]

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.
    (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).

0
11. Section 63.7831 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(5) and (a)(6), and 
adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8);
0
b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h) introductory text and (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. Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), and 
(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.

0
12. Section 63.7833 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c);
0
b. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text and adding new paragraph 
(d)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e) introductory text, and (e)(1), and adding 
new paragraph (e)(3);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(2)(i); and
0
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) of 
this section 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

[[Page 39588]]

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 s