Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities, 53163-53178 [E8-21509]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 179 (Monday, September 15, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53163-53178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21509]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154; FRL-8715-8]
RIN 2060-AO13


Revision of Source Category List for Standards Under Section 
112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production 
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is revising the area source category list by changing the 
name of the ferroalloys production category to clarify that it includes 
all types of ferroalloys. We are also adding two additional products 
(calcium carbide and silicon metal) to the source category. Because 
calcium carbide and silicon metal production involve the use of 
equipment and processes similar to those employed in ferroalloy 
production, we are proposing to address these two products as part of 
the ferroalloys production category. EPA is also proposing national 
emissions standards for control of hazardous air pollutants for area 
source ferroalloys production facilities. The proposed emissions 
standards for new and existing sources are based on EPA's proposed 
determination as to what constitutes the generally available control 
technology (GACT) or management practices for the source category. We 
are proposing to exempt the ferroalloys production area source 
categories from title V permitting requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008, unless 
a public hearing is requested by September 25, 2008. If a hearing is 
requested on these proposed rules, written comments must be received by 
October 30, 2008. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the 
information collection provisions must be received by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) on or before October 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
Federal Docket Management System index at https://www.regulations.gov. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information or other information 
whose disclosure is

[[Page 53164]]

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 www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Area Source National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Ferroalloys Production Facilities Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 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.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0154. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
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 www.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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Sector Policies and 
Programs Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, telephone number: (919) 541-1512; fax number: (919) 
541-3207; e-mail address: chin.conrad@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information in this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards.
    A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for 
these proposed standards?
    B. What source category is affected by these proposed standards?
    C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and 
available controls?
    D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys 
production?
III. Revision to the Source Category List
IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements
    A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?
    C. What are these proposed standards?
    D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?
    E. What are the monitoring requirements?
    F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
V. Rationale for this Proposed Rule
    A. How did we select the source category?
    B. How did we select the affected source?
    C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in 
this proposed rule?
    D. How was GACT determined?
    E. How did we select the compliance requirements?
    F. How did we decide to exempt this are source category from 
title V permit requirements?
VI. Summary of Impacts of these Proposed Standards
VII. 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. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by the 
proposed standards include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Examples of regulated
            Category             NAICS code \1\          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry:
    Electrometallurgical                 331112  Area source facilities
     Ferroalloy Product                           that manufacture
     Manufacturing.                               ferroalloys.
    Primary Smelting and                 331419  Area source facilities
     Refining of Nonferrous                       that manufacture
     Metal (except Copper and                     silicon metal.
     Aluminum).
    All Other Basic Inorganic            325188  Area source facilities
     Chemical Manufacturing.                      that manufacture
                                                  calcium carbide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated 
by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria 
in 40 CFR 63.11393 of subpart YYYYYY (National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Area Sources: Ferroalloys 
Production 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).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

    Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through 
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified 
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document 
Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Environmental

[[Page 53165]]

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 
Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154. Clearly mark the part or all 
of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a 
disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or 
CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-
ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information 
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 
this proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of this 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.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing 
concerning these proposed rules by September 25, 2008, we will hold a 
public hearing on September 30, 2008. If you are interested in 
attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 541-
7966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is 
held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research 
Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site 
nearby.

II. Background Information for Proposed Area Source Standards

A. What is the statutory authority and regulatory approach for these 
proposed standards?

    Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires us to establish 
NESHAP for both major and area sources of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAP) that are listed for regulation under CAA section 112(c). A major 
source emits or has the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or 
more of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. An 
area source is a stationary source that is not a major source.
    Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA calls for EPA to identify at least 
30 HAP which, as the result of emissions from area sources, pose the 
greatest threat to public health in the largest number of urban areas. 
EPA implemented this provision in 1999 in the Integrated Urban Air 
Toxics Strategy, (64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999). Specifically, in the 
Strategy, EPA identified 30 HAP that pose the greatest potential health 
threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to as the ``30 urban 
HAP.'' Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA to list sufficient categories or 
subcategories of area sources to ensure that area sources representing 
90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban HAP are subject to 
regulation. We also implemented these requirements through the 
Strategy. A primary goal of the Strategy is to achieve a 75 percent 
reduction in cancer incidence attributable to HAP emitted from 
stationary sources.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of GACT or 
management practices by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous 
air pollutants.'' Additional information on GACT is found in the Senate 
report on the legislation (Senate Report Number 101-228, December 20, 
1989), which describes GACT as:

    * * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially 
available and appropriate for application by the sources in the 
category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities 
of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems.

Consistent with the legislative history, we can consider costs and 
economic impacts in determining GACT, which is particularly important 
when developing regulations for source categories like this one that 
have a majority of small businesses.
    Determining what constitutes GACT involves considering the control 
technologies and management practices that are generally available to 
the area sources in the source category. We also consider the standards 
applicable to major sources in the same industrial sector to determine 
if the control technologies and management practices are transferable 
and generally available to area sources. In appropriate circumstances, 
we may also consider technologies and practices at area and major 
sources in similar categories to determine whether such technologies 
and practices could be considered generally available for the area 
source category at issue. Finally, as noted above, in determining GACT 
for a particular area source category, we consider the costs and 
economic impacts of available control technologies and management 
practices on that category.
    We are proposing these national emission standards in response to a 
court-ordered deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for 10 
source categories listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) and (k) by 
December 15, 2008 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 01-1537, D.D.C., March 
2006). Other rulemakings will include standards for the remaining 
source categories that are due in December 2008.

B. What source categories are affected by these proposed standards?

    We listed the ferroalloys source category under CAA section 
112(c)(3) in one of a series of amendments (November 22, 2002, 67 FR 
70427) to the original source category list included in the 1999 
Integrated Urban Strategy. The inclusion of this source category on the 
section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions 
data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. 
Ferroalloys production was listed for its contributions toward meeting 
the 90 percent requirement of chromium compounds, manganese compounds, 
and nickel compounds.
    Based on current information, we believe that there are 10 
facilities currently operating that would be subject to the proposed 
area source standards. Seven of these facilities are considered bulk 
ferroalloy producers, meaning that they use large electric arc furnaces 
(EAF) and typically produce anywhere from 8,000 tpy of product per 
furnace up to over 100,000 tpy of product per furnace. Two of these 
facilities currently produce ferrosilicon; three produce silicon metal; 
and two produce calcium carbide. There are also three specialty 
ferroalloy producers. These producers use small EAF or other small 
reaction vessels with lower throughput rates, typically around 10,000 
tpy or less for total plant-wide production of ferrovanadium and/or 
ferromolybdenum. All of these facilities are well controlled as a 
result of State standards and permitting requirements and regulations 
issued under other sections of the CAA.

C. What are the production operations, emission sources, and available 
controls?

    Bulk ferroalloys are produced using submerged EAF, which are 
furnaces in which the electrodes are submerged into the charge. 
Submerged EAF are

[[Page 53166]]

predominately characterized by their energy rating and design-type. 
Furnace design capacities typically range from 10 megawatts (MW) to 50 
MW. Submerged EAF are classified as open, semi-sealed, or sealed, 
depending on their cover configuration.
    The submerged arc process is a reduction smelting operation. The 
reactants consist of metallic ores (e.g., ferrous oxides, silicon 
oxides, manganese oxides, chrome oxides) and a carbon-source reducing 
agent, usually in the form of coke, charcoal, high- and low-volatility 
coal, or wood chips. Limestone may also be added as a flux material. In 
the case of calcium carbide production, the raw materials are coke and 
lime. The raw materials are charged to the furnace and then smelted in 
the furnace. The molten product is tapped from the furnace periodically 
or continuously and then cast and allowed to harden before being 
crushed and sized to fit customer specifications.
    Specialty ferroalloys such as ferromolybdenum and ferrovanadium use 
an exothermic (metallothermic) process to produce high-grade alloys 
with low-carbon content. The intermediate molten alloy used in the 
process may come directly from a submerged EAF (such as the case in 
ferrovanadium production at one plant) or from another type of heating 
device. Silicon or aluminum combines with oxygen in the molten alloy, 
resulting in a sharp temperature rise and strong agitation of the 
molten bath. Aluminum reduction is used to produce ferrovanadium and a 
mixed alumino/silico thermal process is used for producing 
ferromolybdenum. Exothermic processes are generally carried out in open 
vessels and tend to occur very quickly--sometimes within 5 to 10 
minutes and up to 25 minutes. Once the reaction is initiated, it is 
self-perpetuating until all of the charge is used up.
    The electrometallurgical operation is the primary source of 
potential metal HAP emissions at the plant, and all processes have 
capture systems to capture the emissions, which are ducted to control 
devices. Emission points are primary emissions (from the combustion 
zone at the top of the furnace or other vessel), tapping emissions when 
molten product is poured into a ladle for transfer to the casting area, 
and fugitive emissions from the furnace.
    The metallic HAP and any condensable organics are controlled by 
particulate matter (PM) control devices, primarily fabric filters and 
scrubbers.

D. What existing federal standards apply to ferroalloys production?

    As described in 40 CFR 60.260, subpart Z, the new source 
performance standards (NSPS) for ferroalloys production facilities 
apply to the following sources: ``Electric submerged arc furnaces which 
produce silicon metal, ferrosilicon, calcium silicon, silicomanganese 
zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-carbon ferrochrome, 
charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, silicomanganese, ferromanganese 
silicon, or calcium carbide; and dust-handling equipment.'' Any new or 
reconstructed sources constructed after October 21, 1974, are subject 
to this proposed rule.
    As described in 40 CFR 63.1650, subpart XXX, the major source 
NESHAP applies to the following sources: ``All new and existing 
ferromanganese and silicomanganese production facilities that 
manufacture ferromanganese or silicomanganese and are major sources, or 
are co-located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions.''
    Sources that would be subject to this proposed area source rule are 
subject to the NSPS if they have a new or reconstructed furnace. 
However, sources that are subject to the major source NESHAP would not 
be covered by this proposed area source rule.

III. Revision to the Source Category List

    This proposed rule announces a revision to the area source category 
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant 
to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision includes changing the name of 
the source category to clarify that it includes all types of 
ferroalloys and adding two additional products (calcium carbide and 
silicon metal) to the source category.
    Specifically, the revision changes the name of the listed area 
source category, from ``Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and 
Silicomanganese.'' to ``Ferroalloys Production Facilities.'' We are 
making this revision to clarify that the source category includes all 
types of ferroalloys. This is simply a change in the name of the source 
category and does not change the universe of sources that were the 
basis of the area source inventory. The underlying 1990 emissions 
inventory was based on data derived from the Toxics Release Inventory 
for the standard industrial classification (SIC) 3313, 
Electrometallurgical Products, except Steel. The U.S. Department of 
Labor defines this SIC as follows:

    Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing ferro and 
nonferrous metal additive alloys by electrometallurgical or 
metallothermic processes, including high percentage ferroalloys and 
high percentage nonferrous additive alloys.

This SIC definition lists several products, including ferromanganese, 
ferromolybdenum, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium and ferrovanadium. 
Therefore, this name change is being made to be consistent with the 
scope of facilities that formed the basis of the original listing.
    The source category list should be clarified regarding 
ferrotitanium production, however. There are two processes available to 
produce ferrotitanium. One is properly covered by SIC 3313, because it 
is an electrometallurgical and metallothermic process. This process 
produces 35 percent ferrotitanium, but is only used today in Russia, 
China, Brazil, and India. There are no known domestic producers. This 
35 percent grade product is produced using rutile ore and/or illmenite 
ore, and aluminum is used as the reductant. It is an endothermic 
reaction that requires external heat such as from an EAF. In summary, 
this process would be covered by SIC 3313 since it is an 
electrometallurgical and metallothermic operation that purifies and 
reduces a metal compound.
    In contrast, the two existing domestic ferrotitanium producers use 
an induction melting process to produce a 70 percent grade 
ferrotitanium. This process uses scrap metal and is neither a reduction 
nor a purification process. These facilities were not intended to be 
covered in the section 112(k) inventory under this SIC code. Similarly, 
the same induction melting process is used to produce ferroaluminum, 
and this production process is not considered part of the ferroalloy 
production source category.
    As described below, after examining the 1990 inventory and the 
metallurgical operations included in the inventory, we concluded that 
silicon metal production and calcium carbide production are 
appropriately covered by the ferroalloys production source category.
    Silicon metal producers are covered by SIC 3339, Primary Smelting 
and Refining of Nonferrous Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum. Sources 
reporting to SIC 3339 were addressed in the section 112(k) inventory 
for the following metal HAP: Arsenic, cadmium, lead, manganese, and 
nickel. However, when the Primary Smelting and Refining of Nonferrous 
Metals, Except Copper and Aluminum source

[[Page 53167]]

category was listed, its scope was limited to zinc, cadmium and 
beryllium smelting.\1\ The subsequent area source standards that were 
proposed and promulgated only address these sources. See 40 CFR part 
63, Subpart GGGGGG-NESHAP for Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources-
Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium. Silicon metal production uses virtually 
the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was included in 
the NSPS. Because silicon metal production was not included in the 
Primary Nonferrous Metals NESHAP and because it was historically 
included in the ferroalloys production source category, we are 
proposing to include silicon metal production sources in the 
ferroalloys production source category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from Barbara Driscoll, EPA, to Urban Strategy 
Docket. Expanded Description of Source Categories Listed in June 
2002 for Future Regulatory Development. November 18, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, calcium carbide producers report to SIC code 2819, 
Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified, which 
includes calcium carbide manufacturing. These data also formed the 
basis for the section 112(k) inventory and included several HAP metals: 
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel. An 
area source NESHAP for various operations in this source category is 
currently under development, but most of the sources in the category 
are defined by SIC 2819, which covers more traditional chemical 
industry production operations. Calcium carbide production uses 
virtually the same equipment and processes as ferroalloys, and was 
included in the NSPS. Because of the similarities between calcium 
carbide production and ferroalloys production, we are proposing to 
address calcium carbide production in this proposed rule, as opposed to 
the inorganic chemicals area source NESHAP.

IV. Summary of Proposed Requirements

A. Do these proposed standards apply to my source?

    The proposed subpart YYYYYY standards would apply to each existing 
or new electrometallurgical operation located at an area source that 
produces silicon metal, ferrosilicon, ferrotitanium using the aluminum 
reduction process, ferrovanadium, ferromolybdenum, calcium silicon, 
silicomanganese zirconium, ferrochrome silicon, silvery iron, high-
carbon ferrochrome, charge chrome, standard ferromanganese, 
silicomanganese, ferromanganese silicon, calcium carbide or other 
ferroalloy products. These proposed standards do not apply to research 
and development facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the CAA.

B. When must I comply with these proposed standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this proposed rule 
would be required to comply with the rule requirements no later than 
180 days after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. We believe that 180 days would provide sufficient time for 
existing sources to comply with the requirements of the final rule. To 
our knowledge, there is no existing facility that would be required to 
install or modify emission control equipment to meet the requirements 
of the final rule. New sources would be required to comply with these 
rule requirements upon the date of publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.

C. What are the proposed standards?

1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emissions Limit
    These proposed standards establish a limit, as measured by Method 
22, on the duration of visible emissions (VE) from the control 
device(s) on the electrometallurgical operations. The Method 22 test is 
designed to measure the amount of time that any VE are observed during 
an observation period. The owner or operator must demonstrate that the 
control device outlet emissions do not exceed 3 percent of accumulated 
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period. We refer to this as the 
3 percent limit throughout this document.
2. Furnace Building Opacity Limit
    These proposed standards establish a limit for fugitive emissions, 
as determined by Method 9, from the furnace building due solely to 
electrometallurgical operations. The owner or operator must demonstrate 
that the furnace building emissions do not exhibit opacity greater than 
20 percent (6-minute average), except for one 6-minute average per hour 
that does not exceed 40 percent during the 1-hour observation period. 
The observation period must include product tapping.

D. What are the initial and subsequent testing requirements?

1. Electrometallurgical Operations VE Limit
    For each control device on an electrometallurgical operation, the 
owner or operator would be required to conduct an initial Method 22 
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) VE test for at least 60 minutes. A 
semiannual Method 22 test is required thereafter. In the case of a 
fabric filter control device, emissions would be observed at the 
monovent or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For ferroalloy facilities 
using wet scrubbers for PM control, the observations would be conducted 
at the scrubber outlet stack. For example, scrubber outlet emissions 
may be directed to a flare or to another combustion source such as a 
dryer. In this case the outlet of the downstream device or process 
would be observed.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    In order to demonstrate compliance with the furnace building 
opacity requirements, the owner or operator would be required to 
conduct an initial 60-minute (ten 6-minute averages) opacity test for 
fugitive emissions from the furnace building according to the 
procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) (subpart A of the 40 CFR part 63 General 
Provisions) and Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60. The owner 
or operator would then conduct a follow up Method 9 test every 6 
months.
    In order to provide flexibility to sources and reduce the costs of 
demonstrating compliance, we are proposing to allow sources to monitor 
visible emissions using a Method 22 test in place of the semiannual 
Method 9 test. The Method 22 test is successful if no visible emissions 
are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace cycle (tap 
to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed greater 
than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 minutes, 
whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9 
performance test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar 
days after the Method 22 test.

E. What are the monitoring requirements?

    For existing ferroalloy facilities, the owner or operator would be 
required to conduct and record daily visual inspection of the control 
device outlet. In the case of a fabric filter, the source would observe 
the monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE. In the case 
of a wet scrubber, the source would observe the scrubber outlet stack. 
Should any of the daily observations reveal any visible emissions, the 
owner or operator must conduct a Method 22 test as described earlier 
within 24 hours.
    The owner or operator of a new electrometallurgical operation 
equipped with a new fabric filter would be required to install and 
operate a bag leak detection system and prepare a site-specific 
monitoring plan instead of

[[Page 53168]]

complying with the daily visual inspection requirements for existing 
sources. In addition, existing sources would have the option of 
complying with the bag leak detection system requirements as an 
alternative to the daily visual inspections.
    In case of bag leak detection system alarm, the source would be 
required to conduct a visual inspection within 1 hour. If the visual 
monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, the source would be required 
to conduct a Method 22 test within 24 hours of determining the presence 
of any VE.
    The owner or operator of a new sealed EAF equipped with a wet 
scrubber\2\ would be required to install, operate and maintain a 
continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) to measure and record the 
3-hour average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate instead of 
complying with the daily visual inspection requirements. Existing 
sources would have the option of conducting CPMS monitoring in place of 
the daily visual inspection requirements, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The exhaust gases from the sealed EAF can be captured using 
lower airflows than from an open EAF, but the temperature is higher, 
precluding the use of fabric filters. Such sources use wet scrubbers 
as the primary emissions control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When operating a CPMS, if the 3-hour average pressure drop or 
scrubber water flow rate is below the minimum levels that indicate 
normal operation of the control device, the source would be required to 
conduct visual monitoring of the outlet stack(s) within 1 hour. 
Manufacturer's specifications will be used to provide the values for 
normal operation. If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any 
VE, the source would be required to conduct a Method 22 test within 24 
hours of determining the presence of any VE.

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?

    The affected new and existing sources would be required to comply 
with certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A), which are identified in Table 1 of this proposed rule. The 
General Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan and reports required by 40 CFR 63.6(e). 
Each facility would be required to submit an Initial Notification and a 
Notification of Compliance Status according to the requirements in 40 
CFR 63.9 in the General Provisions. The owner or operator would be 
required to submit the Initial Notification within 120 days after 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or 
operator would be required to submit a Notification of Compliance 
Status within 90 days after the applicable compliance date to 
demonstrate initial compliance with these proposed standards.
    In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, owners and 
operators would also be required to maintain records of all monitoring 
data including:
     Date, place, and time of the monitoring event
     Person conducting the monitoring
     Technique or method used
     Operating conditions during the activity
     Results, including the date, time, and duration of the 
period from the time the monitoring indicated a problem to the time 
that monitoring indicated proper operation.

V. Rationale for This Proposed Rule

A. How did we select the source category?

    As described in section II.B, we listed the ferroalloys production 
source category under CAA section 112(c)(3) on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 
70427). The inclusion of this source category on the area source 
category list was based on data from the CAA section 112(k) inventory, 
which represents 1990 urban air information. Ferroalloys production was 
listed for its contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement 
of chromium compounds, manganese compounds, and nickel compounds.
    For this source category, we solicited information on the 
production operations, emission sources, and available controls for 
both area and major sources using written facility surveys, reviews of 
published literature, information gathered during the major source 
NESHAP, and reviews of operating permits. We also held discussions with 
industry representatives, State permitting organizations, and EPA 
experts. This research confirmed that the ferroalloys production source 
category emits the above-noted urban HAP, although we found that 
current emissions of such HAP are lower than the amounts estimated in 
the section 112(k) inventory.

B. How did we select the affected source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the subpart applies. In 
selecting the affected source for regulation, we identified the 
ferroalloys production metal HAP emitting operations and the quantity 
of metal HAP emissions from the individual or groups of emissions 
points. We concluded that designating the electrometallurgical 
operation (including EAF or other reactions vessels such as crucibles) 
as the affected source was the most appropriate approach and consistent 
with existing ferroalloys regulations (i.e., the major source NESHAP 
and the NSPS). This proposed rule includes requirements for the control 
of primary, tapping, and fugitive emissions from electrometallurgical 
operations.

C. How did we address the ferroalloys production metal HAP in this 
proposed rule?

    For this proposed rule, we have selected PM as a surrogate for 
ferroalloys production metal HAP. We decided that it was not practical 
to establish individual standards for each specific type of metallic 
HAP that could be present in the emissions (e.g., separate standards 
for manganese emissions, chromium emissions, and nickel emissions) 
because the types and quantities of metal HAP can vary widely in the 
raw materials. Further, and more significantly, when released, each of 
the metallic HAP compounds behaves as PM. The control technologies used 
for the control of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of 
performance for these metallic HAP emissions, i.e., when PM is 
captured, HAP metals are captured nonpreferentially as part of the PM. 
Therefore, emission standards requiring control of PM will also achieve 
comparable control of metallic HAP emissions.

D. How was GACT determined?

    As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), we are proposing standards 
representing GACT for the ferroalloys production source HAP emissions. 
As noted in section II.A of this preamble, the statute allows the 
Agency to establish standards for area sources listed pursuant to 
section 112(c) based on GACT. The statute does not set any condition 
precedent for issuing standards under section 112(d)(5) other than that 
the area source category or subcategory at issue must be one that EPA 
listed pursuant to section 112(c), which is the case here.
    Moreover, all of the facilities in this source category have good 
operational controls in place. We evaluated the control technologies 
that are generally available for the ferroalloys production area source 
category. We also considered costs and economic impacts in determining 
GACT. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is 
especially important for the

[[Page 53169]]

well-controlled ferroalloys production area sources because, given 
current well-controlled levels, requiring additional controls would 
result in only marginal reductions in emissions at very high costs for 
modest incremental improvement in control for this area source 
category. We explain below in detail our proposed GACT determinations.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emission Limit
    All of the known area source electrometallurgical operations are 
equipped with either fabric filters or wet scrubbers to control PM 
emissions. Major source ferroalloy producers also utilize similar PM 
controls on EAF. Most of these control devices and their associated 
furnaces or other reaction vessels have been in operation for many 
years and are custom-designed and -built. In addition, the majority of 
EAF in this industry are controlled with large, positive pressure 
fabric filters because of the large volume of air that is used to 
capture the primary (and typically tapping emissions) from the open 
furnaces that are the predominate EAF-type in the U.S. In other cases, 
negative pressure fabric filters are used to control PM emissions from 
the smaller specialty ferroalloy operations and/or tapping emissions, 
because lower airflow rates are needed to capture these emissions. One 
existing facility that has a sealed EAF uses a scrubber as the primary 
means of emission control. We reviewed the existing permit limits to 
evaluate whether the control devices exhibit a similar level of control 
and determined that they do. (See technical memorandum in the docket 
for more details on EAF permit requirements and estimated PM 
emissions).
    Based on the existing operating permit requirements for EAF at 
ferroalloys production facilities, we found a variety of formats and 
units, e.g., percent opacity, allowable PM or PM10 emission 
rates (pounds per hour, tpy, or pound per megawatt-hour), and outlet 
concentrations (grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)). However, 
as discussed below, there are technical, cost, and implementation 
issues associated with demonstrating compliance with a PM numerical 
emission limit such that it does not constitute GACT for this source 
category.
    A traditional approach to demonstrating compliance with a numerical 
emissions limit is to conduct a PM emissions performance test and then 
monitor parameters of the control device that indicate whether the 
control device is operating at least as well as it was during the test. 
This approach is particularly effective if there are conditions that 
can produce variable outlet emissions levels. However, fabric filters 
that are commonly used at ferroalloy production operations are 
essentially constant concentration devices. This means that fabric 
filters are very effective (i.e., 99 percent or more), at removing PM 
of all particle sizes when properly designed and operated. The 
variability of the uncontrolled pollutant loading has very little 
effect on the concentration of PM in the exhaust of the device (see 
document at https://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/mkb/documents/ff-pulse.pdf). 
Based on an evaluation of existing permit limits in this industry, we 
believe that a fabric filter control device would need to achieve an 
outlet concentration of less than 0.01 gr/dscf to ensure that the 
control device is well operated and maintained.
    We have concerns about the economic effect of PM emissions testing 
for smaller facilities. The typical EPA Method 5 PM emissions test on a 
stack costs between $3,000 and $10,000. A positive pressure fabric 
filter device typical of those used at the bulk ferroalloys producers 
does not have a stack of the type for which Method 5 is designed. 
Instead, these control devices emit essentially straight from the bags 
to the atmosphere through multiple stub stacks or a long roof vent. 
Conducting representative emissions testing on such devices requires a 
modified approach, which we have described in EPA Method 5D. The cost 
of conducting a test with Method 5D is driven by the design and size of 
the fabric filter outlet. Method 5D tests on fabric filters will cost 
from 3 to 10 times more than a Method 5 test on a stack. The $10,000 to 
over $40,000 cost per test per control device become a significant 
economic burden for these area sources.
    Given these control device characteristics, we considered whether 
an opacity or VE standard would be GACT for this industry. There is a 
correlation between PM concentration and opacity in the fabric filter 
outlet stream, and studies have shown that particulate concentrations 
are approximately zero at an opacity of zero.\3\ For example, a test at 
a wet cement kiln with a fabric filter showed that when outlet 
concentrations were less than 0.009 gr/dscf, opacity was less than 2 
percent. This opacity is low enough that it would probably be observed 
as zero under most conditions. This in turn would result in a very low 
incidence of VE during any observation period. A search of permits 
found several examples of venturi scrubbers also being subject to zero 
VE tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Study of Benefits of Opacity Monitors Applied to Portland 
Cement Kilns. Prepared by Ronald Meyers, U.S. EPA, May 15, 1991, pp. 
3-1, 3-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we propose a very low (e.g., 3 percent accumulation of 
VE during the observation period) VE limit as GACT. As described above, 
data support a conclusion that a 3 percent accumulation or less VE 
limit will provide assurance that the control device is properly 
designed and operated. Further, the cost of VE testing (less than $125 
for Method 22) is significantly less than the cost of PM emissions 
testing. It is also less than the cost of conducting a Method 9 test 
(approximately $2,000 for a contractor to conduct the test), which is 
why we did not select an opacity limit as GACT. A rule that specifies a 
very low VE limit can afford to include more frequent testing than one 
that has a PM emissions limit that may require only an initial test or 
at best a test only every several years.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    In addition to control requirements, maintaining capture efficiency 
is also important in determining GACT. All of the ferroalloys 
production electrometallurgical operations are equipped with capture 
systems. We lack empirical data on their actual performance; however, 
there is precedent for establishing a VE limit from the EAF (NSPS) or 
furnace building (major source NESHAP, 20 percent opacity) as a 
surrogate for performance of the capture systems. Establishing a 20 
percent opacity limit is common in State regulations (including 
Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia) that address 
foundries, smelters, EAF, and other combustion sources. For example, 
Michigan rule 336.1358 for roof monitor VE at steel manufacturing 
facilities from electric arc furnaces and blast furnaces states:

    Rule 358. (1) A person shall not cause or permit to be 
discharged to the outer air, at a steel manufacturing facility, from 
a roof monitor source of emission of an electric arc furnace, or a 
blast furnace, a visible emission with a density of more than 20% 
opacity.

Therefore, we have determined that a 20 percent furnace building (e.g., 
shop) limit is GACT for this source category.
    Existing permits and regulations also tend to provide an upper 
bound opacity limit to account for variation in building operations 
that could result in fugitive emissions during the Method 9 observation 
period. These upper limits range from 27 percent (Michigan

[[Page 53170]]

permits for similar sources (foundries)) to 60 percent (major source 
ferroalloys NESHAP, see 40 CFR 63.1653(a)). The existing title V permit 
for a ferrosilicon producer allows a single 6-minute average not to 
exceed 40 percent during the Method 9 observation period. For this 
proposed area source rule, we propose to establish an upper limit 
opacity of 40 percent, limited to a single 6-minute average opacity 
determination.
    In addition to establishing an upper limit, we considered whether 
upset or malfunction conditions such as blowing taps, poling, and 
oxygen lancing of the tap hole should be excluded from the observation 
period. For example, blowing taps are a malfunction and occur when the 
pressure in the furnace is not balanced. Similarly, both oxygen lancing 
and poling are considered to be ``failures of the process to operate in 
a normal or usual manner'', as described in the March 1976 EPA document 
``Supplemental Information on Standards of Performance or Ferroalloy 
Production Facilities''. We determined that the General Provisions 
requirements (40 CFR 63.6(e)) to develop and operate according to a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan would adequately address these 
and other types of malfunctions that might occur during the VE 
observation period. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to 
provide such exclusions in this proposed rule.

E. How did we select the compliance requirements?

    We are proposing testing, monitoring, notification, and 
recordkeeping requirements to ensure compliance with this proposed 
rule. These provisions are based, in part, on requirements that have 
been applied to several industries in other rulemakings and an 
understanding of how control devices perform and can be effectively 
monitored. In selecting these requirements, we identified the 
information necessary to ensure emissions controls are maintained and 
operated properly on a continuing basis. We also evaluated more 
enhanced monitoring requirements, such as the use of bag leak detection 
systems, which were required in 40 CFR part 63, subpart XXX for new 
sources. We believe the proposed requirements will assure compliance 
without posing a significant additional burden for facilities that must 
implement them.
1. Electrometallurgical Operation Equipment Standards
    We are proposing that compliance with the VE limit would be 
established through an initial and then semiannual observation of VE 
using EPA Method 22. Method 22 results record the accumulation of time 
that any VE is observed. We are proposing a 60-minute observation 
period to ensure that observations occur during representative 
conditions. We are seeking comment on whether a different observation 
period might be appropriate.
    Monitoring would consist of a daily VE observation. As described 
above, properly operated and maintained fabric filters and scrubbers 
should normally operate with no VE at the outlet. If any VE are 
observed, a possible problem is indicated and a Method 22 test must be 
conducted within 24 hours. If the Method 22 test shows that the control 
device emissions are above the 3 percent limit, the source would be 
required to report an exceedance. This compliance format will encourage 
sources to correct control device operational problems as soon as 
possible.
    For new sources equipped with fabric filters, we are proposing use 
of bag leak detection systems for monitoring. Bag leak detection 
systems are typical requirements for new sources (e.g., new sources 
subject to the major source NESHAP are required to install them) and 
represent state-of-the art continuous compliance by providing early 
notice of leaking bags. These systems can be incorporated into the 
design and operation for new sources and would not require retrofitting 
or duplicative monitoring as would be the case if they were applied to 
existing sources. Existing sources also might opt to install bag leak 
detection systems to monitor performance. Sources using bag leak 
detection systems would not be subject to the daily VE requirements. 
Instead, a system alarm would trigger a VE observation within 1 hour. 
If any VE are observed, the source would be required to conduct a 
Method 22 test within 24 hours. Sources desiring to install a PM 
emissions monitoring system (e.g., PM continuous emissions monitoring 
system) or other monitoring method can request the Administrator's 
approval of such a plan on a case-by-case basis under the authority of 
the part 63 General Provisions (Sec.  63.8(f)(4)(i)).
    We are proposing that new sealed EAF sources with wet scrubbers 
install, maintain and operate a CPMS to monitor pressure drop and 
scrubber liquid flow rate. These systems represent state-of-the-art 
continuous compliance and can be designed into the unit at 
installation. Existing sources would be allowed to adopt CPMS as well. 
Similar to bag leak detection system monitoring, the CPMS would be used 
to provide an indication that the wet scrubber is operating properly 
instead of a required daily check of VE. We are proposing that if the 
3-hour average pressure drop or scrubber water flow rate is below the 
minimum levels that indicate normal operation of the control device, 
the source would be required to conduct visual monitoring of the outlet 
stack(s) within 1 hour. Manufacturer's specifications will be used to 
provide the values for normal operation. If the visual monitoring 
reveals the presence of any VE, the source must conduct a Method 22 
test within 24 hours.
2. Furnace Building Opacity
    Compliance with an opacity limit for fugitive emissions is commonly 
demonstrated using a Method 9 test. Therefore, we are proposing that 
initial compliance must be demonstrated using a certified Method 9 
observer to perform this test. We recognize that not all facilities 
have a certified observer on staff, and we are proposing that sources 
would have the option of monitoring VE using Method 22 for the 
subsequent semi-annual compliance demonstration. The test is successful 
if no VE are observed for 90 percent of the readings over the furnace 
cycle (tap to tap) or 60 minutes, whichever is more. If VE are observed 
greater than 10 percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 
minutes, whichever is more, then the facility must conduct a Method 9 
test as soon as possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the 
Method 22 test.
    We are proposing this compliance alternative because we are trying 
to reduce the potential compliance burden on sources. To the extent 
that sources have certified Method 9 observers already on staff for 
other reasons, they might choose to continue to demonstrate semiannual 
compliance with Method 9 observation. Other sources might choose to 
hire a contractor to conduct both the initial Method 9 and the 
subsequent observations rather than devote in-house resources. However, 
we have assumed that some sources would choose to hire a contractor to 
do the initial compliance observation, but might want to conduct the 
semiannual observations using in-house staff if they could avoid the 
cost of keeping a certified Method 9 reader on staff. The Method 22 
alternative allows the use of this potentially more economical test, 
but a Method 9 test would be required in the event that the VE observed 
using Method 22 exceed 10 percent of the time in the observation 
period.

[[Page 53171]]

F. How did we decide to exempt this area source category from title V 
permitting requirements?

    We are proposing exemption from title V permitting requirements for 
affected facilities in the ferroalloys production area source category 
for the reasons described below.
    Section 502(a) of the CAA provides that the Administrator may 
exempt an area source category from title V if he determines that 
compliance with title V requirements is ``impracticable, infeasible, or 
unnecessarily burdensome'' on an area source category. See CAA section 
502(a). In December 2005, in a national rulemaking, EPA interpreted the 
term ``unnecessarily burdensome'' in CAA section 502 and developed a 
four-factor balancing test for determining whether title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category, such 
that an exemption from title V is appropriate. See 70 FR 75320, 
December 19, 2005 (``Exemption Rule'').
    The four factors that EPA identified in the Exemption Rule for 
determining whether title V is ``unnecessarily burdensome'' on a 
particular area source category include: (1) Whether title V would 
result in significant improvements to the compliance requirements, 
including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting that are proposed 
for an area source category (70 FR 75323); (2) whether title V 
permitting would impose significant burdens on the area source category 
and whether the burdens would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
sources may have in obtaining assistance from permitting agencies (70 
FR 75324); (3) whether the costs of title V permitting for the area 
source category would be justified, taking into consideration any 
potential gains in compliance likely to occur for such sources (70 FR 
75325); and (4) whether there are implementation and enforcement 
programs in place that are sufficient to assure compliance with the 
proposed NESHAP for the area source category, without relying on title 
V permits (70 FR 75326).
    In discussing these factors in the Exemption Rule, we further 
explained that we considered on ``a case-by-case basis the extent to 
which one or more of the four factors supported title V exemptions for 
a given source category, and then we assessed whether considered 
together those factors demonstrated that compliance with title V 
requirements would be `unnecessarily burdensome' on the category, 
consistent with section 502(a) of the Act.'' See 70 FR 75323. Thus, in 
the Exemption Rule, we explained that not all of the four factors must 
weigh in favor of exemption for EPA to determine that title V is 
unnecessarily burdensome for a particular area source category. 
Instead, the factors are to be considered in combination, and EPA 
determines whether the factors, taken together, support an exemption 
from title V for a particular source category.
    In the Exemption Rule, in addition to determining whether 
compliance with title V requirements would be unnecessarily burdensome 
on an area source category, we considered, consistent with the guidance 
provided by the legislative history of section 502(a), whether 
exempting the area source category would adversely affect public 
health, welfare or the environment. See 70 FR 15254-15255, March 25, 
2005. We have determined that the proposed exemption from title V would 
not adversely affect public health, welfare and the environment. Our 
rationale for this decision follows here.
    In considering the proposed exemption from title V requirements for 
sources in the category affected by this proposed rule, we first 
compared the title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements (factor one) to the requirements in this proposed NESHAP 
for the ferroalloys production area source category. Title V requires 
periodic monitoring to ensure compliance. This proposed standard would 
provide for monitoring in the form of VE observations and opacity 
testing that would assure compliance with the requirements of this 
proposed rule. This proposed NESHAP would also require the preparation 
of an annual compliance certification report and submission of this 
report if there are any deviations during the year, which will identify 
for the agency implementing this rule those facilities with compliance 
issues, in the same way as a title V permit. Records would be required 
to ensure that the compliance requirements are followed and any needed 
corrective actions are taken, including such records as results of the 
visual emissions and opacity tests and the resulting corrective actions 
such as replacing a torn fabric filter bag. Therefore, this proposed 
rule contains monitoring sufficient to assure compliance with the 
requirements of this proposed rule.
    We also considered the extent to which title V could potentially 
enhance compliance for area sources covered by this proposed rule 
through recordkeeping or reporting requirements. We have considered the 
various title V recordkeeping and reporting requirements, including 
requirements for a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports, and an 
annual certification in 40 CFR 70.6 and 71.6. For any affected 
ferroalloys production facility, this proposed NESHAP would require an 
initial notification and an initial and annual notification of 
compliance status. This proposed NESHAP would further require affected 
facilities to maintain records showing compliance with the required 
standards and compliance requirements. This proposed NESHAP also would 
require sources to comply with the requirements in the part 63 General 
Provision for startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans, reports, and 
records in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3); see Table 1 of this proposed rule. When a 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction report must be submitted, it must 
consist of a letter containing the name, title, and signature of the 
owner or operator or other responsible official who is certifying its 
accuracy. The information that would be required in the notifications, 
reports, and records is similar to the information that would be 
provided in the deviation reports required under 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3) and 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3).
    We believe the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements in this proposed rule are sufficient to assure compliance 
with the requirements of this proposed rule. Therefore, we conclude 
that title V would not result in significant improvements to the 
compliance requirements we are proposing for this area source category.
    For the second factor, we must determine whether title V permitting 
would impose a significant burden on the area sources in the category 
and whether that burden would be aggravated by any difficulty the 
source may have in obtaining assistance from the permitting agency. 
Subjecting any source to title V permitting imposes certain burdens and 
costs that do not exist outside of the title V program. EPA has 
estimated that the average annual cost of obtaining and complying with 
a title V permit is $9,500 per source.\4\ See Information Collection 
Request (ICR) for Part 70 Operating Permit Regulations, April 2007, EPA 
ICR Number 1587.07. EPA does not have specific estimates for the 
burdens and costs of permitting the

[[Page 53172]]

ferroalloys production area sources; however, there are certain 
activities associated with the part 70 and 71 rules. These activities 
are mandatory and impose burdens on the facility. They include reading 
and understanding permit program guidance and regulations; obtaining 
and understanding permit application forms; answering follow-up 
questions from permitting authorities after the application is 
submitted; reviewing and understanding the permit; collecting records; 
preparing and submitting monitoring reports on a 6-month or more 
frequent basis; preparing and submitting prompt deviation reports, as 
defined by the State, which may include a combination of written, 
verbal, and other communications methods; collecting information, 
preparing, and submitting the annual compliance certification; 
preparing applications for permit revisions every 5 years; and, as 
needed, preparing and submitting applications for permit revisions. In 
addition, although not required by the permit rules, many sources 
obtain the contractual services of consultants to help them understand 
and meet the permitting program's requirements. The ICR for part 70 
provides additional information on the overall burdens and costs, as 
well as the relative burdens of each activity. Also, for a more 
comprehensive list of requirements imposed on part 70 sources (hence, 
burden on sources), see the requirements of 40 CFR 70.3, 70.5, 70.6, 
and 70.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This value is higher than the permitting cost estimate 
discussed in other recent area source proposal packages because it 
is based on an updated analysis of the reporting burden. However, 
this value is based on an understanding that most of the title V 
permits that are currently in development are renewals. A new title 
V permit would likely have a higher average cost of development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In assessing the second factor for the three existing ferroalloys 
production facilities that do not currently have title V permits (two 
of whom are small businesses), we examined the potential cost 
implications for the source category. At a cost of $9,500 per facility 
to obtain and maintain a title V permit, the cost of permits would 
exceed the estimated total annualized cost of complying with the 
standards (approximately $6,100 per facility). Thus, we believe that 
the second factor supports the proposed title V exemption for 
ferroalloys production facilities.
    The third factor, which is closely related to the second factor, is 
whether the costs of title V permitting for these area sources would be 
justified, taking into consideration any potential gains in compliance 
likely to occur for such sources. We explained for the second factor 
that the costs of compliance with title V would impose a significant 
burden on the sources that would be required to obtain a title V 
permit. We also believe in considering the first factor that, while 
title V might impose additional requirements, the monitoring, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the proposed NESHAP would 
assure compliance with the standards imposed in the NESH