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, 78637-78647 [E8-30424]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 23, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78637-78647]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-30424]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0154; FRL-8755-4]
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: Final 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. EPA is 
issuing final national emissions standards for control of hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) for area source ferroalloys production facilities. The 
final emissions standards for new and existing sources reflect EPA's 
determination regarding the generally available control technology 
(GACT) or management practices for the source category.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 23, 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 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.

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. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for This Final Rule
III. Revision to the Source Category List
IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
V. Summary of Final Standards
    A. Do these final standards apply to my source?
    B. When must I comply with these standards?
    C. What are the final 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?
    G. What are the title V permit requirements?
VI. Summary of Comments and Responses
    A. Electrometallurgical Operation VE Limit
    B. Furnace Building Opacity Limit
    C. Daily VE Inspections
    D. Activities Subject to the GACT Rule
VII. Impacts of the Final Standards
VIII. 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 (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health 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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The regulated categories and entities potentially affected by this 
final rule include:

[[Page 78638]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  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 
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this 
final action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 
63.11524 of subpart YYYYYY (NESHAP for Area Sources: Ferroalloys 
Production Facilities). If you have any questions regarding the 
applicability of this final 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. Where can I get a copy of this document?

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

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review 
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
by February 23, 2009. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an 
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public 
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also 
provides a mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for 
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate 
to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the 
period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose 
after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for 
judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the 
outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration 
to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the 
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the 
person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation 
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background Information for This Final Rule

    Section 112(d) of the CAA requires us to establish NESHAP for both 
major and area sources of 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 implemented these requirements through the Strategy and 
subsequent updates to the source category list. The ferroalloys 
production source category was listed pursuant to section 112(c)(3) for 
its contributions toward meeting the 90 percent requirement of chromium 
compounds, manganese compounds, and nickel compounds.
    Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may elect to promulgate standards 
or requirements for area sources ``which provide for the use of 
generally available control technology [GACT] or management practices 
by such sources to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As 
explained in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing 
standards based on GACT.
    We are issuing these final national emission standards for 
ferroalloys production area sources in response to a court-ordered 
deadline that requires EPA to issue standards for one source category 
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).

III. Revision to the Source Category List

    This final 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 ``Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and 
Silicomanganese'' to ``Ferroalloys Production Facilities.'' We are also 
adding two additional products (calcium carbide and silicon metal) to 
the source category.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We did not receive any adverse comments on the proposed 
revisions to the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    We have made three significant changes to the proposed rule based 
on public comments.
    Electrometallurgical Operation Visible Emissions. In response to 
comments, we have increased the level of the allowable accumulated 
occurrences of visible emissions (VE) from the electrometallurgical 
operation using EPA Method 22 from 3 percent in a 60-minute observation 
period to 5 percent in a 60-minute observation period.
    Furnace Building Opacity. While we have retained the 20 percent 
opacity limit for the discharge of fugitive particulate matter (PM) 
emissions from the furnace building containing the

[[Page 78639]]

electrometallurgical operations, we have increased the limit of the 
allowed single 6-minute average above 20 percent from 40 percent to 60 
percent.
    Frequency of VE Observations. Under this final rule, sources that 
conduct daily visual monitoring of the electric arc furnace (EAF) or 
other reaction vessel control equipment would be allowed to decrease 
this frequency to a weekly observation upon achieving 90 consecutive 
operating days of observation with no presence of any VE noted. If VE 
is noted after the source converts to a weekly schedule, the source 
must revert to daily observations for the affected control equipment 
until it achieves an additional 90 consecutive operating days of 
observation with no presence of any VE noted. At that point, the source 
may convert to weekly observations. We have also clarified this final 
rule to specify that such observations only need to be made on days (or 
weeks) when the electrometallurgical operations and associated control 
devices are operating.

V. Summary of Final Standards

A. Do these final standards apply to my source?

    This final rule (subpart YYYYYY) applies 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 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 standards?

    All existing area source facilities subject to this final rule must 
comply with the rule requirements no later than June 22, 2009. New 
sources must comply with these final rule requirements on December 23, 
2008 or upon startup of the facility, whichever is later.

C. What are the final standards?

1. Electrometallurgical Operation VE Limit
    These final standards establish a limit, as measured by Method 22 
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60), on the duration of 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 5 percent of 
accumulated occurrences in a 60-minute observation period. We refer to 
this as the 5 percent limit throughout this document.
2. Furnace Building Opacity Limit
    These final standards establish a limit for fugitive emissions, as 
determined by Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60), 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 period per hour for which the average opacity 
does not exceed 60 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 must 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 must 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 must conduct a 
follow up Method 9 test every 6 months.
    In order to provide flexibility to sources and reduce the costs of 
demonstrating compliance, this final rule allows sources to monitor VE 
using a Method 22 test in place of the semiannual Method 9 test. The 
Method 22 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 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 must 
conduct and record the results of daily visual inspection of the 
control device outlet on days when the electrometallurgical operation 
is operating. 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 VE, the owner or 
operator must conduct a Method 22 test as described earlier within 24 
hours.
    The source would have the option to decrease the frequency of 
observations from daily to weekly if the source collects at least 90 
consecutive operating days of observations with no VE. If, after the 
source converts to a weekly schedule, any VE is observed, the source 
must revert to a daily schedule, until another consecutive 90 operating 
days of data are obtained that demonstrate there was no VE during the 
period observed. Then, the source may convert to a weekly observation 
schedule.
    The owner or operator of a new electrometallurgical operation 
equipped with a new fabric filter is required to install and operate a 
bag leak detection system and prepare a site-specific monitoring plan 
instead of complying with the daily (or weekly) visual inspection 
requirements for existing sources. In addition, existing sources have 
the option of complying with the bag leak detection system requirements 
as an alternative to the daily (weekly) visual inspections.
    In case of bag leak detection system alarm, the source must conduct 
a visual inspection within 1 hour of the alarm sounding. If the visual 
monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, the source must 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 must install, operate and maintain a

[[Page 78640]]

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 (weekly) visual inspection requirements. 
Existing sources have the option of conducting CPMS monitoring in place 
of the daily (weekly) visual inspection requirements, as well.
    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 must conduct visual 
monitoring of the outlet stack(s) within 1 hour of determining that the 
3-hour average parameter value is below the required minimum levels. 
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 of 
determining the presence of any VE.

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

    The affected new and existing sources are required to comply with 
certain requirements of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A), which are identified in Table 1 of this final rule. The General 
Provisions include specific requirements for notifications, 
recordkeeping, and reporting, including provisions for a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan and reports required by 40 CFR 
63.6(e). Each facility is 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 is 
required to submit the Initial Notification within 120 days after 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. The owner or 
operator is required to submit a Notification of Compliance Status 
within 90 days after the applicable compliance date to demonstrate 
initial compliance with this final rule.
    In addition to the records required by 40 CFR 63.10, owners and 
operators are 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.

G. What are the title V permit requirements?

    This final rule exempts the ferroalloys production area source 
category from title V permitting requirements unless the affected 
source is otherwise required by law to obtain a title V permit. For 
example, sources that have title V permits because they are major 
sources under the criteria pollutant program would maintain those 
permits.

VI. Summary of Comments and Responses

    We received six comments from industry representatives on the 
proposed rule during the comment period. Sections VI.A. through VI.D. 
summarize the significant comments and explain our response. Some of 
the comments we received requested clarification or only addressed 
minor source-specific issues. These comments are summarized and 
addressed in a memorandum to the project docket.

A. Electrometallurgical Operation VE Limit

    Comment: Some commenters suggested that this final rule should 
allow a 5 percent accumulation of VE at the control device outlet 
instead of the proposed 3 percent limit. Some commenters disagreed with 
using data from the cement kiln industry to select a 3 percent VE limit 
for furnace or reaction vessel emissions (emitted from a baghouse or 
scrubber).\2\ Instead, they said the limit should be comparable to the 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standard for baghouse 
emissions of ``35 milligrams per dry standard cubic meter, or 0.015 
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf)'' (40 CFR 63.1652(a)). The 
commenters added that 5 percent VE translates to a 3-minute 
accumulation period, vs. a 1.8-minute accumulation period at 3 percent, 
which is more practical to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the proposal preamble (73 FR 53169, September 15, 2008) 
we cited an example of a test at a wet cement kiln with a fabric 
filter that showed when outlet concentrations were less than 0.009 
gr/dscf, opacity was less than 2 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As described at proposal, we determined that GACT is 
either a well controlled baghouse or wet scrubber, which is correlated 
with low particulate concentration in the exhaust gas. We selected 3 
percent as the proposed VE limit instead of stack sampling to minimize 
the burden of compliance demonstration. However, we agree with 
commenters that a 5 percent accumulation is more practical to implement 
and, as such, is GACT. Because this change will not have a significant 
impact on emissions and will be simpler to implement, we are changing 
this final rule to allow a 5 percent accumulation.

B. Furnace Building Opacity Limit

    Comment: Commenters argued that the proposed furnace building 
opacity limit is too restrictive in terms of the proposed upper bound 
of 40 percent for no more than one 6-minute period during the 60-minute 
observation period. Commenters provided additional information that 
some sources have existing permits that allow excursions up to 60 
percent. For example, one ferrosilicon manufacturing facility is 
subject to a range of opacity limits depending on the operation being 
observed. Commenters also noted that some of the rules that EPA 
referenced in the proposed GACT determination were not for ferroalloys 
operations. They suggested that EPA should look to States like Kentucky 
and Ohio that have ferroalloys-specific rules and are based on a 60 
percent upper limit.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that there is evidence that 
the GACT for the 1-minute excursion level is 60 percent. In response to 
comments, we reviewed the permit limits for existing ferroalloys 
production area sources and found a range of allowed excursion levels 
ranging from 0 to 60 percent. We also looked at State rules in those 
States that have existing ferroalloys production sources. All had 
baseline opacity limits of 15 to 20 percent, and all allowed excursions 
of 40 to 60 percent or specified conditions that could be excluded from 
the observation. In the case of New York, there is a provision for the 
source to petition for an alternative limit. Therefore, based on 
existing permit requirements and relevant State regulations, we believe 
that a single 6-minute excursion level of 60 percent is GACT for this 
category. Because sources are, in fact, operating up to an excursion 
level of 60 percent, and this level presumably accounts for different 
normal operating conditions, we are making the change requested by the 
commenter.

C. Daily VE Inspections

    The proposed rule required sources to conduct daily visual 
monitoring of the monovent or control device outlet stack(s) for any 
VE.
    Comment: Some commenters said this final rule does not allow for 
any deviation from daily visible inspections of all control device 
outlets, even if the equipment is not operating. Some

[[Page 78641]]

commenters also suggested a step-down process similar to that found in 
other programs, where in the absence of noting emissions during daily 
observations over a specified time period (e.g., one month), the source 
could step down to weekly observations. They said that this approach is 
consistent with federal leak detection and repair rules and would 
reduce the ``substantial burden on the affected facilities with no 
benefit to the environment.''
    Response: First, we agree with commenters that observations are 
meaningful only on days when the source equipment (and control device) 
are operating. This final rule clarifies this point.
    Also, based on a closer inspection of existing permit requirements 
for area sources in this industry, we did find some permits that 
required either weekly monitoring and/or allowed a step down from daily 
to weekly. While we estimate that the overall burden associated with 
the monitoring requirement is minimal, we are also sensitive to the 
fact that these are generally operations with a small number of staff 
with many other responsibilities. The intent of the VE inspection is to 
have ongoing assurance that the control device is operating properly. 
We are comfortable that a demonstration that shows good performance 
over at least 90 consecutive operating days, followed by weekly 
inspections, is sufficient for the type of controls (generally 
baghouses) used in this industry. Therefore we are changing this final 
rule to include a provision for stepped down observations after 
demonstrating good ongoing performance. Should a source subsequently 
observe VE on a weekly schedule, the source would have to revert to a 
daily schedule until another 90-day block of observations could be used 
to justify returning to a weekly schedule.
    Comment: Another commenter said that the initial and semi-annual 
observations are ``entirely adequate'' to show compliance with the 
proposed standards. The commenter said area sources do not have the 
resources to send out personnel on a daily basis during operations to 
perform observations, nor should the same be required as a GACT 
standard or work practice. They added that title V does not require 
daily monitoring of any parameter.
    Response: We disagree with the commenter that an initial and semi-
annual observation alone provides sufficient assurance of compliance 
with the VE limit. While this final rule exempts sources from the title 
V permit requirement if the source is otherwise not subject to title V, 
we note that part of the basis for the exemption is that subjecting 
sources to the permit requirement would not lead to better monitoring 
and enforceability. PM control device monitoring provisions have 
historically been based on the use of either continuous opacity 
monitoring, bag leak detection, or parametric monitoring (e.g., 
pressure drop). Parametric monitoring requirements may be continuous, 
or, in some cases, daily in the form of a meter reading. With this 
final rule, we have replaced such requirements with daily VE monitoring 
that we believe provide data indicative of a well operated and 
maintained control device. In addition, the daily VE observation we 
require should not take more than 5 minutes, a burden we deem as 
minimal. As discussed above, we have provided the opportunity to reduce 
the frequency of such monitoring to weekly, but believe this is the 
minimum frequency that would demonstrate ongoing compliance. A facility 
always has the option to install the bag leak detection system or CPMS 
in lieu of the daily VE monitoring.

D. Activities Subject to the GACT Rule

    Comment: Some commenters disagreed with our contention in the 
proposal preamble that blowing taps, poling, and oxygen lancing should 
be considered upsets or malfunctions and handled under the General 
Provisions SSM provisions. One commenter added that requiring an area 
source to treat a blowing tap or other operation associated with 
tapping as events that would require reporting to the administrative 
agency through an SSM plan adds unnecessary regulatory burden.
    Response: We have reviewed our statements in the proposal preamble 
that such events should be treated under a source's SSM plan. Upon 
further discussions with the commenters we realized that some events 
such as poling can be quite frequent (e.g., daily), and may be 
difficult to define for all operations and product types. It was a 
mischaracterization on our part to imply that all such events are 
always malfunctions. We did not intend to require that sources include 
these events in their SSM plan such that the result would be daily 
reports of events that are not actual malfunctions. The content of the 
SSM plan is left to the discretion of the source and this final rule 
does not specify that such events should be included in a plan.
    Comment: Commenters contended that blowing taps, poling, and oxygen 
lancing should be exempted from the area source GACT rule. They noted 
that such events are exempt from the ferroalloys MACT opacity standard 
(40 CFR 63.1653(b)) and requested that EPA provide the same exemption 
for area sources.
    Response: We note that blowing taps, poling, and oxygen lancing 
activities emit the same urban HAP for which the source category was 
listed under section 112(c)(3). As we explained in the proposed rule, 
we listed the ferroalloys production area source category under section 
112(c)(3) because we needed the category to meet the section 112(c)(3) 
90 percent requirement for emissions of chromium compounds, manganese 
compounds, and nickel compounds. The record adequately supports and the 
commenters do not question that there are HAP emissions related to 
poling, oxygen lancing, and blowing taps, and that these emissions are 
from emission points in this source category. Because poling, oxygen 
lancing, and blowing taps emit chromium compounds, manganese compounds, 
and nickel compounds, we are appropriately setting standards for these 
activities in this GACT rule.
    Based on discussions with the commenters, they indicated that they 
can meet the furnace building opacity standard without resorting to 
such exemptions. The availability of the increased excursion level 
provides a level of operation that does not require an exemption of the 
activities discussed above.\3\ In fact, the purpose of the excursion 
level is to address variable operations and/or emissions. Because we 
believe that all companies can meet the opacity limit with the revised 
60 percent excursion level, we do not believe an exemption of blowing 
taps, poling, and oxygen lancing events to be appropriate, since these 
events are HAP-emitting normal operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See docket memos dated October 22, 2008 that summarize 
discussions with commenters on this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we have established that the controls required under this 
final rule are generally available within the source category. As more 
thoroughly discussed in the proposal and in Section IV (Summary of 
Major Changes Since Proposal), above, we have assessed the control 
technologies currently in place in this source category, reviewed the 
economics of this industry, and identified low cost methods to assure 
that HAP are well controlled. As described above, none of the 
commenters objected to the feasibility of

[[Page 78642]]

meeting the building opacity limit, and none said it was prohibitive in 
cost or otherwise not an available technique. In light of the need to 
meet the requirements of section 112(c)(3) and the record basis for 
saying the control measures required today are generally available, we 
have decided to retain coverage of blowing taps, poling, and oxygen 
lancing. There is additional discussion on our decision to regulate 
these activities in the docket memorandum.

VII. Impacts of the Final Standards

    Affected sources are well-controlled and our GACT determination 
reflects such controls. Compared to the early 1990s when we evaluated 
this industry as part of the development of the major source rule, we 
believe that sources have improved their level of control and reduced 
emissions due to State permitting requirements or actions taken to 
improve efficiency and/or reduce costs. For example, sources have 
reported improved capture of tapping emissions, improved process 
controls that minimize upset conditions, and installed improvements in 
fabric filter technology such as Goretex[supreg] bags. We estimate that 
the only impact associated with this final rule is for the compliance 
requirements (monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and testing), which 
is estimated to be approximately $3,600 per facility.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 
is therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB 
approves them.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this final rule are 
based on the requirements in EPA's NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart A). The recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
the General Provisions are mandatory pursuant to section 114 of the CAA 
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information other than emissions data submitted 
to EPA pursuant to the information collection requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to CAA 
section 114(c) and the Agency's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 
2, subpart B.
    This final NESHAP requires ferroalloys production area sources to 
submit an Initial Notification and a Notification of Compliance Status 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 of the General Provisions 
(subpart A). Records are required to demonstrate compliance with the 
opacity and VE requirements. The owner or operator of a ferroalloys 
production facility also is subject to notification and recordkeeping 
requirements in 40 CFR 63.9 and 63.10 of the General Provisions 
(subpart A), although we have deemed that annual compliance reports are 
sufficient instead of semiannual reports.
    The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the 
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to be a total of 387 labor hours 
per year at a labor cost of $35,662 or approximately $3,600 per 
facility. The average annual reporting burden is 26 hours per response, 
with approximately 3 responses per facility for 10 respondents. There 
are no capital and operating and maintenance costs associated with this 
final rule requirements for existing sources. Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    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. EPA displays OMB control numbers 
various ways. For example, EPA lists OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR part 9, which we amend periodically. 
Additionally, we may display the OMB control number in another part of 
the CFR, or in a valid Federal Register notice, or by other appropriate 
means. The OMB control number display will become effective the 
earliest of any of the methods authorized in 40 CFR part 9.
    When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a Federal 
Register notice announcing this approval and displaying the OMB control 
number for the approved information collection requirements contained 
in this final rule. If necessary, we will also publish a technical 
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to consolidate the 
display of the OMB control number with other approved information 
collection requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure 
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small 
businesses found at 13 CFR 121.201 (less than 750 employees for NAICS 
331112 and 331419 and less than 1,000 employees for NAICS 325188); (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 this final rule on small 
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final 
rule is estimated to impact 10 area source ferroalloys production 
facilities that are currently operating. We estimate that five of these 
facilities may be small entities. We have determined that small entity 
compliance costs, as assessed by the facilities' cost-to-sales ratio, 
are expected to be less than 0.02 percent. The costs are so small that 
the impact is not expected to be significant. Although this final rule 
contains requirements for new area sources, we are not aware of any new 
area sources being constructed now or planned in the next 3 years, and 
consequently, we did not estimate any impacts for new sources.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has 
tried to reduce the impact of this final rule on small entities. These 
standards represent practices and controls that are common throughout 
the ferroalloys production industry. These standards also require only 
the essential recordkeeping and reporting needed to demonstrate and 
verify compliance. These standards were developed based on information 
obtained from small businesses in our surveys, consultation with small 
business representatives on the State and national level, and industry

[[Page 78643]]

representatives that are affiliated with small businesses.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final rule does 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 the private sector in any one year. 
This final rule is not expected to impact State, local, or tribal 
governments. Thus, this action is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule 
contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no 
obligations upon them, and would not result in expenditures by them of 
$100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on 
them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This final rule 
imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this final action.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This final action is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on 
technology performance.

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

    This final action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is 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. VCS are technical standards 
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and 
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This final rule involves technical standards. Therefore, the Agency 
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS. However, we 
identified no such standards, and none were brought to our attention in 
comments. Therefore, EPA has decided to use EPA Methods 9 and 22 in 
this final rule.
    Under Sec.  63.7(f) and Sec.  63.8(f) of subpart A of the General 
Provisions, a source may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative 
test methods or alternative monitoring requirements in place of any 
required testing methods, performance specifications, or procedures.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it would not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment.

K. 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 Congress and to the Comptroller General 
of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this final 
rule 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 this final rule 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). This final rule will be effective on December 23, 
2008.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

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

    Dated: December 15, 2008.
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 A--[Amended]

0
2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYYY to read as follows:

[[Page 78644]]

Subpart YYYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities

Applicability and Compliance Dates

Sec.
63.11524 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.11525 What are my compliance dates?

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements

63.11526 What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys 
production facilities?
63.11527 What are the monitoring requirements for new and existing 
sources?
63.11528 What are the performance test and compliance requirements 
for new and existing sources?
63.11529 What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

Other Requirements and Information

63.11530 What parts of the General Provisions apply to my facility?
63.11531 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.11532 What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.11533-63.11543 [RESERVED]
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General 
Provisions to Subpart YYYYYY

Subpart YYYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Area Sources: Ferroalloys Production Facilities

Applicability and Compliance Dates


Sec.  63.11524  Am I subject to this subpart?

    (a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a 
ferroalloys production facility that is an area source of hazardous air 
pollutant (HAP) emissions. A ferroalloys production facility 
manufactures 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 using electrometallurgical operations including 
electric arc furnaces (EAFs) or other reaction vessels.
    (b) The provisions of this subpart apply to each existing and new 
electrometallurgical operation affected source as defined in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section.
    (1) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is existing 
if you commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF or other 
reaction vessel on or before September 15, 2008.
    (2) An electrometallurgical operation affected source is new if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the EAF or other reaction 
vessel after September 15, 2008.
    (c) This subpart does not apply to research or laboratory 
facilities as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (d) You are exempt from the obligation to obtain a permit under 40 
CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part 71, provided you are not otherwise required 
by law to obtain a permit under 40 CFR 70.3(a) or 40 CFR 71.3. 
Notwithstanding the previous sentence, you must continue to comply with 
the provisions of this subpart.


Sec.  63.11525  What are my compliance dates?

    (a) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must 
achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this subpart by 
June 22, 2009.
    (b) If you start up a new affected source on or before December 23, 
2008, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this subpart by no later than December 23, 2008.
    (c) If you start up a new affected source after December 23, 2008, 
you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this 
subpart upon startup of your affected source.

Standards, Monitoring, and Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.11526  What are the standards for new and existing ferroalloys 
production facilities?

    (a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere visible emissions (VE) 
from the control device that exceed 5 percent of accumulated 
occurrences in a 60-minute observation period.
    (b) You must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive PM emissions 
from the furnace building containing the electrometallurgical 
operations that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute 
average), except for one 6-minute average per hour that does not exceed 
60 percent.


Sec.  63.11527  What are the monitoring requirements for new and 
existing sources?

    (a) EAF Equipped with Fabric Filters.
    (1) Visual Monitoring. You must conduct visual monitoring of the 
monovent or fabric filter outlet stack(s) for any VE according to the 
schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (i) Daily Visual Monitoring. Perform visual determination of 
fugitive emissions once per day, on each day the process is in 
operation, during operation of the process.
    (ii) Weekly Visual Monitoring. If no visible fugitive emissions are 
detected in consecutive daily visual monitoring performed in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section for 90 days of operation of 
the process, you may decrease the frequency of visual monitoring to 
once per calendar week of time the process is in operation, during 
operation of the process. If visible fugitive emissions are detected 
during these inspections, you must resume daily visual monitoring of 
that operation during each day that the process is in operation, in 
accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section until you satisfy 
the criteria of this section to resume conducting weekly visual 
monitoring.
    (2) If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you 
must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
following the requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of 
determining the presence of any VE.
    (3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may 
install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system for each 
fabric filter as an alternative to the monitoring requirements in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If you own or operate a new affected 
source, you must install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection 
system for each fabric filter according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (a)(3)(vii) of this section. Such source 
is not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of 
this section.
    (i) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of PM at concentrations of 10 milligrams per 
actual cubic meter (0.00044 grains per actual cubic foot) or less.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide output of 
relative PM loadings and the owner or operator shall continuously 
record the output from the bag leak detection system using a strip 
chart recorder, data logger, or other means.
    (iii) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound 
when an increase in relative PM loadings is detected over the alarm set 
point established in the operation and maintenance plan, and the alarm 
must be located such that it can be heard, seen, or otherwise detected 
by the appropriate plant personnel.
    (iv) The initial adjustment of the system must, at minimum, consist 
of establishing the baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity 
(range) and the averaging period of the device, and

[[Page 78645]]

establishing the alarm set points. If the system is equipped with an 
alarm delay time feature, you also must establish a maximum reasonable 
alarm delay time.
    (v) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set point, or alarm delay time, 
except that, once per quarter, you may adjust the sensitivity of the 
bag leak detection system to account for seasonal effects including 
temperature and humidity.
    (vi) For fabric filters that are discharged to the atmosphere 
through a stack, the bag leak detector sensor must be installed 
downstream of the fabric filter and upstream of any wet scrubber.
    (vii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (4) When operating a bag leak detection system, if an alarm sounds, 
conduct visual monitoring of the monovent or fabric filter outlet 
stack(s) as required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section within 1 hour. 
If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you must 
conduct a Method 22 test following the requirements of Sec.  
63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of determining the presence of any VE.
    (5) You must prepare a site-specific monitoring plan for each bag 
leak detection system. You must operate and maintain each bag leak 
detection system according to the plan at all times. Each plan must 
address all of the items identified in paragraphs (a)(5)(i) through 
(a)(5)(v)of this section.
    (i) Installation of the bag leak detection system.
    (ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the bag leak detection 
system including how the alarm set-point and alarm delay time will be 
established.
    (iii) Operation of the bag leak detection system including quality 
assurance procedures.
    (iv) Maintenance of the bag leak detection system including a 
routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list.
    (v) How the bag leak detection system output will be recorded and 
stored.
    (b) EAF Equipped with Wet Scrubbers.
    (1) Visual Monitoring. You must conduct visual monitoring of the 
wet scrubber outlet stack(s) for any VE according to the schedule 
specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (i) Daily Visual Monitoring. Perform visual determination of 
fugitive emissions once per day, on each day the process is in 
operation, during operation of the process.
    (ii) Weekly Visual Monitoring. If no visible fugitive emissions are 
detected in consecutive daily visual monitoring performed in accordance 
with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section for 90 days of operation of 
the process, you may decrease the frequency of visual monitoring to 
once per calendar week of time the process is in operation, during 
operation of the process. If visible fugitive emissions are detected 
during these inspections, you must resume daily visual monitoring of 
that operation during each day that the process is in operation, in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section until you satisfy 
the criteria of this section to resume conducting weekly visual 
monitoring.
    (2) If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, you 
must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
following the requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of 
determining the presence of any VE.
    (3) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you may 
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 as an alternative to the monitoring 
requirements specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If you own 
or operate a new sealed EAF affected source, you must install, operate, 
and maintain a CPMS for each wet scrubber. Such source is not subject 
to the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (4) 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, conduct visual monitoring of 
the outlet stack(s) as required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section 
within 1 hour of determining that the 3-hour average parameter value is 
below the required minimum levels. Manufacturer's specifications for 
pressure drop and liquid flow rate will be used to determine normal 
operations. If the visual monitoring reveals the presence of any VE, 
you must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
following the requirements of Sec.  63.11528(b)(1) within 24 hours of 
determining the presence of any VE.


Sec.  63.11528  What are the performance test and compliance 
requirements for new and existing sources?

    (a) Initial Compliance Demonstration Deadlines. You must conduct an 
initial Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test following the 
requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section of each existing 
electrometallurgical operation control device and an initial Method 9 
observation following the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section from the furnace building due to electrometallurgical 
operations no later than 60 days after your applicable compliance date. 
For any new electrometallurgical operation control device, you must 
conduct an initial Method 22 test following the requirements of 
paragraph (b)(1) of this section within 15 days of startup of the 
control device.
    (b) Visible Emissions Limit Compliance Demonstration.
    (1) You must conduct a Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) 
test to determine that VE from the control device do not exceed the 
emission standard specified in Sec.  63.11526(a). For a fabric filter, 
conduct the test for at least 60 minutes at the fabric filter monovent 
or outlet stack(s), as applicable. For a wet scrubber, conduct the test 
for at least 60 minutes at the outlet stack(s).
    (2) You must conduct a semiannual Method 22 test using the 
procedures specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (c) Furnace Building Opacity.
    (1) You must conduct an opacity test for fugitive emissions from 
the furnace building according to the procedures in Sec.  63.6(h) and 
Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60). The test must be conducted 
for at least 60 minutes and shall include tapping the furnace or 
reaction vessel. The observation must be focused on the part of the 
building where electrometallurgical operation fugitive emissions are 
most likely to be observed.
    (2) Conduct subsequent Method 9 tests no less frequently than every 
6 months and each time you make a process change likely to increase 
fugitive emissions.
    (3) After the initial Method 9 performance test, as an alternative 
to the Method 9 performance test, you may monitor VE using Method 22 
(Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) for subsequent semi-annual compliance 
demonstrations. The Method 22 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 longer. If VE are observed greater than 10 
percent of the time over the furnace cycle or 60 minutes, whichever is 
longer, then the facility must conduct another test as soon as 
possible, but no later than 15 calendar days after the Method 22 test 
using Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60) as specified in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

[[Page 78646]]

Sec.  63.11529  What are the notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

    (a) Initial Notification. You must submit the Initial Notification 
required by Sec.  63.9(b)(2) of the General Provisions no later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this final rule in the 
Federal Register. The Initial Notification must include the information 
specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2)(i) through (b)(2)(iv).
    (b) Notification of Compliance Status. You must submit a 
Notification of Compliance Status in accordance with Sec.  63.9(h) of 
the General Provisions before the close of business on the 30th day 
following the completion of the initial compliance demonstration. This 
notification must include the following:
    (1) The results of Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR part 60) test 
for VE as required by Sec.  63.11528(a);
    (2) If you have installed a bag leak detection system, 
documentation that the system satisfies the design requirements 
specified in Sec.  63.11527(a)(3) and that you have prepared a site-
specific monitoring plan that meets the requirements specified in Sec.  
63.11527(a)(5);
    (3) The results of the Method 9 (Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR part 60) 
test for building opacity as required by Sec.  63.11528(a).
    (c) Annual Compliance Certification. If you own or operate an 
affected source, you must submit an annual certification of compliance 
according to paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this section.
    (1) The results of any daily or weekly visual monitoring events 
required by Sec.  63.11527(a)(1) and (b)(1), alarm-based visual 
monitoring at sources equipped with bag leak detection systems as 
required by Sec.  63.11527(a)(4), or readings outside of the operating 
range at sources using CPMS on wet scrubbers required by Sec.  
63.11527(b)(4).
    (2) The results of the follow up Method 22 (Appendix A-7 of 40 CFR 
part 60) tests that are required if VE are observed during the daily or 
weekly visual monitoring, alarm-based visual monitoring, or out-of-
range operating readings as described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) The results