[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33415-33421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16012]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60

[AD-FRL-5525-5]
RIN 2060-AG33


Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources for 
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants; Amendments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes revisions and clarifications to several 
provisions of the standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral 
processing plants, which were promulgated in the Federal Register on 
August 1, 1985 (50 FR 31328). On January 26, 1995, the National Stone 
Association petitioned EPA to review the existing standards. These 
revisions are in keeping with President Clinton's Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative. The intended effect of this action is to reduce 
the costs of emission testing and reporting and recordkeeping. The 
affected industries and numerical emission limits remain unchanged 
except for individual, enclosed storage bins.
    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to provide interested 
persons an opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or 
arguments concerning the proposed revised standards.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before August 26, 
1996.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by July 23, 1996, a public hearing will be held on 
August 5, 1996 beginning at 10 a.m. Persons interested in attending the 
hearing should call Ms. Cathy Coats at (919) 541-5422 to verify that a 
hearing will be held.
    Request to Speak at Hearing. Persons wishing to present oral 
testimony must contact EPA by July 23, 1996 (contact Ms. Cathy Coats at 
(919) 541-5422.)

ADDRESSES: Comments. Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if 
possible) to: The Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), ATTN: Docket No. A-95-46, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments, and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information.'' 
Submissions containing such proprietary information should be sent 
directly to the following address, and not to the public docket, to 
ensure that proprietary information is not inadvertently placed in the 
docket: Attention: Mr. William Neuffer, c/o Ms. Melva Toomer, U.S. EPA 
Confidential Business Information Manager, OAQPS/MD-13; Research 
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Information covered by such a 
claim of confidentiality will be disclosed by the EPA only to the 
extent allowed and by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received 
by the EPA, the submission may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.
    Docket. Docket No. A-95-46, containing supporting information used 
in developing the proposed revisions is available for public inspection 
and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, at 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20460; telephone (202) 260-7548, fax (202) 260-4000. A reasonable fee 
may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Neuffer at (919) 541-5435, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina 27711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by EPA's final action on this 
proposed rule are new, modified, or reconstructed affected facilities 
in nonmetallic mineral processing plants. These categories and entities 
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                             Examples              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Crushed and broken stone, sand and  
                                     gravel, clay, rock salt, gypsum,   
                                     sodium compounds, pumice,          
                                     gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite,  
                                     boron, barite, fluorospar,         
                                     feldspar, diatomite, perlite,      
                                     vermiculite, mica, kyanite         
                                     processing plants                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by final 
action on this proposal. This table lists the types of entities that 
EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by final action on this 
proposal. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by final 
action on this proposal, you should carefully examine the applicability 
criteria in Sec. 60.670 of the rule. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background
II. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Public Hearing
    B. Docket
    C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
    D. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
    1. Paperwork Reduction Act
    2. Executive Order 12866
    3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

I. Background.

    Standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral processing plants 
were promulgated in the Federal Register on August 1, 1985 (50 FR 
31328). These standards implement section 111 of the Clean Air Act and 
require all new, modified, and reconstructed nonmetallic mineral 
processing plants to achieve emission levels that reflect the best 
demonstrated system of continuous emission

[[Page 33416]]

reduction, considering costs, nonair quality health, and environmental 
and energy impacts.
    The promulgated standards apply to new, modified, and reconstructed 
facilities at plants that process any of the following 18 nonmetallic 
minerals: crushed and broken stone, sand and gravel, clay, rock salt, 
gypsum, sodium compounds, pumice, gilsonite, talc and pyrophyllite, 
boron, barite, fluorospar, feldspar, diatomite, perlite, vermiculite, 
mica, and kyanite. The affected facilities are each crusher, grinding 
mill, screening operation, bucket elevator, belt conveyor, bagging 
operation, storage bin, and enclosed truck or railcar loading station.
    On January 26, 1995, the National Stone Association (NSA) 
petitioned the EPA, pursuant to the Clean Air Act and the 
Administrative Procedures Act, to review the existing NSPS for 
nonmetallic mineral processing plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOO). In 
its petition, NSA and its member companies requested the EPA to review 
and consider revising, in particular, the provisions in the NSPS that 
pertain to the test methods and procedures. Also, NSA requested that 
several of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements be reduced or 
eliminated.

II. Summary and Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS

A. Summary of Proposed Revisions

    As a result of the EPA's review of concerns raised by NSA and its 
member companies and discussions with State and Local air pollution 
control agencies, the Administrator has concluded that several 
revisions to the NSPS are warranted. The following is a brief summary 
of the proposed revisions to the NSPS, followed by a discussion of the 
basis for the proposed revisions.
    1. Section 60.670, Applicability and designation of affected 
facility, is being revised:
    a. To clarify that facilities located in underground mines are not 
subject to the NSPS;
    b. To exempt wet screening operations from all requirements of the 
NSPS, except the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in 
Sec. 60.676(g).
    c. To clarify within subpart OOO which General Provisions (40 CFR 
Part 60, subpart A) requirements apply to owners and operators of 
affected facilities subject to the NSPS. A table has been included to 
clarify the applicable General Provisions requirements.
    2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is being revised to add a 
definition of ``wet screening operation.''
    3. Section 60.672, Standard for particulate matter, is being 
revised:
    a. To state the particulate matter standard for an individual, 
enclosed storage bin ducted to a single control device.
    b. To clarify that affected facilities are subject to a standard 
for stack emissions of particulate matter and a stack opacity standard.
    4. Section 60.675, Test methods and procedures, is being revised:
    a. To reduce the duration of Method 9 observations of fugitive 
emissions for compliance for any affected facility from 3 hours (30 6-
minute averages) to 1 hour (10 6-minute averages) if there are no 
individual readings greater than 10% opacity and there are no more than 
3 individual readings of 10% opacity during the 1 hour test period.
    b. To allow the use of Method 9, in lieu of Method 5, for 
determining compliance for fabric filter collectors controlling 
particulate matter emissions from an individual, enclosed storage bin 
ducted to a baghouse that only controls emissions from this bin. For 
compliance purposes, the duration of the Method 9 observations for any 
baghouse controlling an individual, enclosed storage bin will be 1 hour 
(10 6-minute averages).
    c. To reduce the General Provisions (section 60.8(d)) notification 
requirement from 30 days to 7 days prior notice of any rescheduled 
performance test if there is a delay in conducting any previously 
scheduled performance test for which 30 days notice has been supplied 
under this NSPS.
    5. Section 60.676, Reporting and recordkeeping, is being revised:
    a. To delete the requirement to report ``like-for-like 
replacements'' of equipment to the Director, Emission Standards 
Division (section 60.676(b)).
    b. To waive the requirement in the General Provisions (section 
60.7(a)(2)) for notification of the anticipated date of initial startup 
of an affected facility.
    c. To allow a single notification of the actual date of initial 
startup of a combination of affected facilities in a production line 
that begin initial startup simultaneously, in lieu of multiple 
notifications of the actual date of initial startup of individual 
affected facilities. The notification must include a description of 
each affected facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number, if 
available.

B. Rationale for Proposed Revisions to NSPS

1. Applicability
    a. As a result of past inquiries from some plant owners and 
operators as to whether crushers or any other equipment used in 
nonmetallic mineral processing that are located in underground mines 
are subject to the NSPS, the EPA is clarifying its intent by adding 
language to the regulation to state that this NSPS does not apply to 
facilities located in underground mines. Emissions from crushers or 
other facilities in underground mines are vented in the general mine 
exhaust and cannot be distinguished from emissions from drilling and 
blasting operations which are not covered by the standards. Therefore, 
the EPA is clarifying its intent that crushers and other facilities 
located in underground mines not be regulated under the NSPS 
(Sec. 60.670(a)).
    b. The EPA is also proposing a revision to Sec. 60.670(a), which 
states that the provisions of the NSPS do not apply, except for one-
time recordkeeping and reporting, to wet screening operations and 
associated belt conveyors downstream of the wet screening operation in 
the production line up to, but not including, the next crusher, 
grinding mill or dry screening operation in the production line of a 
nonmetallic minerals processing plant. For further clarification, ``wet 
screening operation'' is being defined in the regulation as ``a 
screening facility designed and operated at all times to remove 
unwanted material from the product by a washing process whereby the 
product is completely saturated with water.'' There is no potential for 
air emissions from either screening or conveying operations in the wet/
wash end of a processing plant unless a crusher, grinding mill or dry 
screeening operation is included in the process. Therefore, wet 
screening operations are not subject to the provisions of Secs. 60.672, 
60.674, and 60.675 under this regulation (subpart OOO) or the General 
Provisions (subpart A). The only requirement for wet screening 
operations is a one-time recordkeeping and reporting requirement under 
section 60.676(g) of the NSPS.
    It is possible, however, that a screening facility/operation may be 
operated as wet screening at one location where a washing process is 
used to remove unwanted material from the product; later, at the same 
location or after movement to another location, it may no longer 
operate as wet screening. In these cases, where it ceases operating as 
a wet screen, applicability of all the provisions of this regulation 
would be triggered and the screening operation would become an affected 
facility subject to all of the requirements of this regulation and the 
General Provisions (Subpart A). For tracking purposes, a one-time

[[Page 33417]]

recordkeeping and reporting requirement for wet screening operations 
has been added to the NSPS (Sec. 60.676(g)).
    c. The NSA and its member companies requested clarification of the 
applicable General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) requirements 
for owners and operators of affected facilities subject to this NSPS 
(Subpart OOO). They stated that many of their members were unaware that 
the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) existed or applied 
in addition to this NSPS. Therefore, in an effort to facilitate an 
awareness and a better understanding of the General Provisions 
requirements and implementation of those requirements, the EPA is 
adding a table to the regulation (subpart OOO) that specifies the 
provisions of subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to 
owners and operators of affected facilities subject to Subpart OOO.
2. Standard for Particulate Matter
    In the past, there have been several requests for clarification of 
Sec. 60.672(a) of the regulation regarding whether owners or operators 
of affected facilities are subject to both a standard for stack 
emissions of particulate matter and a stack opacity standard. The 
preamble for the promulgated rule clearly states that affected 
facilities are subject to both the stack emission limit and stack 
opacity standard (50 FR 31329-first column; August 1, 1985). Therefore, 
the word ``or'' at the end of paragraph (a)(1) in Sec. 60.672 has been 
deleted to remove any ambiquity in the requirements.
3. Test Methods and Procedures
    a. One of the concerns of the NSA and its member companies was the 
duration of Method 9 testing (3 hours for each fugitive-type emission 
source) for fugitive emissions from affected facilities such as 
crushers and belt conveyor transfer points, in situations when almost 
all 15-second observations are observed to be 0 percent opacity. They 
asserted that usually no emissions were observed from these affected 
facilities (when properly maintained and operated) during the Method 9 
observations, and therefore they did not believe that 3 hours of 
observations were justified or necessary for determining compliance. 
Due to the large number of these affected facilities at nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants, the amount of time and the cost for Method 9 
observations from these sources were considered by NSA to be very 
burdensome.
    The General Provisions (Sec. 60.11(b)) require 3 hours (30 6-minute 
averages) of Method 9 observations for determining compliance for 
fugitive emission sources. However, after review and evaluation of data 
submitted by the industry, the EPA has decided to reduce the Method 9 
testing duration for observing fugitive emissions from any affected 
facility subject to this NSPS from 3 hours (30 6-minute averages) to 1 
hour (10 6-minute averages) if there are no individual readings greater 
than 10% opacity and there are no more than 3 individual readings of 
10% opacity during this first hour.
    The data submitted to the EPA by industry for review was compiled 
from several hundred visible emission tests conducted by the industry 
for each type of affected facility subject to the NSPS. The majority 
(52 percent) of the visible emission tests were conducted for belt 
conveyor transfer points. The data included opacity readings from 58 
different 3 hour tests. For the first hour, the test results showed 
that 51 of the 58 3-hour tests had no individual readings of 10 percent 
or greater. Only 3 belt conveyor transfer points had individual 
readings greater than 10%. Only 5 belt conveyor transfer points had 
more than 3 individual readings of 10%. The most obvious result 
obtained from the tests was the consistency of the readings from hour 
to hour. Readings during the first hour of testing were in line with 
readings taken during hours 2 and 3. If a problem existed at a transfer 
point or other fugitive emission source, it would be evident during the 
first hour of testing. Therefore, for these reasons, EPA believes that 
1 hour (10 6-minute averages) of Method 9 observations is sufficient 
for any affected facility to show compliance with the fugitive emission 
standard if there are no individual readings greater than 10% opacity 
and there are no more than 3 individual readings of 10% opacity during 
the first hour.
    b. Also of concern to NSA and its members is the requirement in the 
NSPS for Method 5 testing of fabric filter collectors (baghouses) 
controlling particulate matter emissions from individual, enclosed 
storage bins ducted to a single baghouse. They requested that 
individual, enclosed storage bin emissions be exempted from Method 5 
testing because the baghouse outlet is not amenable to Method 5 testing 
due to the intermittent nature of individual storage bin operations and 
the small air flow rates.
    Information supplied by NSA indicates that Method 5 testing cannot 
be performed for baghouses that only control emissions from individual, 
enclosed storage bins unless the emissions are combined with emissions 
from other storage bins or other affected facilities in order to 
determine compliance. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to exempt a 
baghouse that only controls emissions from an individual, enclosed 
storage bin from Method 5 stack emission testing. Compliance for an 
individual, enclosed storage bin ducted to a single baghouse will be 
determined by Method 9 (Sec. 60.672(f)). For compliance purposes, one 
hour (10 6-minute averages) of Method 9 observations will be required 
for each individual, enclosed storage bin. Multiple storage bins with 
combined stack emissions controlled by a baghouse are subject to Method 
5 testing and concurrent Method 9 testing as required under 
Sec. 60.672(g).
    c. The General Provisions (Sec. 60.8(d)) require 30 days prior 
notice of any performance test, ``* * * except as specified under other 
subparts * * *.'' In cases where a performance test must be 
rescheduled, due to operational problems, etc., it is not always 
reasonable or necessary to provide 30 days prior notice to EPA or the 
State of the new date of the performance test. Based on conversations 
with personnel who are affected by the notification of the new date of 
the performance test (i.e., personnel at EPA Regional Offices and State 
agencies), the EPA has determined that after the initial 30-day 
notification, then notice provided 7 days prior to a rescheduled test 
is sufficient time to provide the Regional, State or Local agencies the 
opportunity to have an observer present. Therefore, Sec. 60.675 has 
been revised to reflect this allowance.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping
    a. Under the promulgated standards, the replacement of an existing 
facility with a new facility of equal or smaller size and having the 
same function (like-for-like replacement) is exempt from compliance 
with the emission limits of the NSPS (Sec. 60.670(d)(1)). In order to 
qualify for this exemption, an owner or operator replacing an existing 
facility with a new facility of equal or smaller size must report this 
to the EPA Regional Offices and to the States (if the particular State 
has been delegated NSPS authority). This information and additional 
information is also required to be reported to the Director of the 
Emission Standards Division of EPA in order to assess the frequency and 
characteristics of such replacements.
    The EPA has reviewed this requirement and has determined that the 
report to the Director of the Emission Standards Division is no longer 
needed for like-for-like replacements. Therefore, in an effort to 
streamline the reporting requirements of

[[Page 33418]]

this NSPS, this requirement in Sec. 60.676(b) has been deleted. 
However, the information requested under Sec. 60.676(a) is still 
required to be reported to EPA Regional Offices, and State or local 
agencies if they have received NSPS delegation authority.
    b. The EPA has also reviewed the General Provisions requirement 
(Sec. 60.4(a)) for owners and operators of affected facilities to send 
copies of all requests, reports, applications, submittals and other 
communications to the appropriate EPA Regional Office in cases where 
the State has been delegated authority to enforce the NSPS. In these 
cases, some EPA Regional Offices will consider waiver of this 
requirement for affected facilities subject to this subpart on a plant-
by-plant basis. The method for accomplishing this reporting reduction 
on a plant-by-plant basis would be through the Operating Permit for the 
individual plant. Thus, some plants have an option available to them 
for further reporting reductions.
    c. The General Provisions (Sec. 60.7(a)(2)) also require a 
notification of the anticipated date of initial startup for new 
affected facilities. After reviewing this requirement, the EPA has 
determined that this notification can be waived for owners and 
operators of affected facilities subject to this NSPS without affecting 
the enforcement of this regulation. Due to the large number of plants 
being regulated under this regulation, the deletion of this reporting 
requirement under this subpart is being made for purposes of 
streamlining and further reduction of the reporting burden on both 
large and small plant owners or operators.
    d. The General Provisions [section 60.7(a)(3)] require a 
notification of the actual date of initial startup for each affected 
facility within the plant. The NSA and its member companies requested 
the EPA to review this requirement as it pertains to owners and 
operators of the nonmetallic minerals processing NSPS. They cited the 
examples of the addition of several new affected facilities being added 
to a production line or the addition of a whole new production line, 
and they requested whether, for notification purposes only, a single 
notification of the actual date of initial startup could be submitted 
for all of these affected facilities, in lieu of several separate 
notifications.
    After a review of this situation, the EPA has determined, for 
notification purposes only, that a single notification of the actual 
date of initial startup of a combination of affected facilities in a 
production line that begin initial startup simultaneously would be 
acceptable. The notification must include a description of each 
affected facility, equipment manufacturer, and serial number of the 
equipment, if available, for future compliance purposes. A single 
notification for multiple affected facilities starting production at 
the same time would have no adverse impact on enforcement of the 
standards. Therefore, in an effort to further reduce the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of this regulation, section 60.676 has been 
revised to reflect this allowance.
    This revision would also benefit the EPA and State and local 
agencies in terms of reducing staff review time for numerous single 
notifications of the actual date of initial startup.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed revisions to the standards in accordance with Section 
307(d)(5) of the Clean Air Act. Persons wishing to make oral 
presentations on the proposed revisions should contact the EPA (see 
ADDRESSES). If a public hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask 
clarifying questions during the oral presentation but will not respond 
to the presentations or comments. To provide an opportunity for all who 
may wish to speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes 
each. Any member of the public may file a written statement on or 
before August 26, 1996. Written statements should be addressed to the 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES) and 
refer to Docket No. A-95-46. Written statements and supporting 
information will be considered with equivalent weight as any oral 
statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a public 
hearing, if held. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and written 
statements will be placed in the docket and be available for public 
inspection and copying, or mailed upon request, at the Air and 
Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

B. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed rulemaking. 
The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested 
parties to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively 
participate in the rulemaking process and (2) to serve as the official 
record in case of judicial review (except for interagency review 
materials (section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act)).

C. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

    1. Administrator Listing--Under Section 111 of the Act, 
establishment of standards of performance for nonmetallic mineral 
processing plants was preceded by the Administrator's determination (40 
CFR 60.16, 44 FR 49222, dated August 21, 1979) that these sources 
contribute significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
    2. External Participation--In accordance with section 117 of the 
Act, publication of the proposed revisions to the NSPS was preceded by 
consultation with a national trade association composed of 570 member 
companies and several States. The Administrator welcomes comments on 
today's proposed revisions to the NSPS.
    3. Economic Impact Assessment--Section 317 of the Act requires the 
Administrator to prepare an economic impact assessment for any new 
source standard of performance promulgated under Section 111(b) of the 
Act. Today's proposed rulemaking is for clarifications and minor 
revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and 
procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping sections of the regulation. 
No additional controls or other costs are being incurred as a result of 
these revisions. The proposed revisions would result in a cost savings 
for the industry (reduction of certain testing and recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements) and the EPA and State/Local agencies (reduction 
in staff time needed to review fewer reports). Therefore, no economic 
impact assessment for the proposed revisions to the standards was 
conducted.

D. Office of Management and Budget Reviews

1. Paperwork Reduction Act
    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., an ``information collection request'' (ICR) document has been 
prepared by the EPA (ICR No. ________) to reflect the revised/reduced 
information requirements of the proposed revised regulation and a copy 
may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division 
(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., 
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740.
    Under the existing NSPS, the industry recordkeeping and reporting 
burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new

[[Page 33419]]

nonmetallic mineral processing plant was estimated at 820 hours and 
$27,100 for the first year of operation. The vast majority of the 
estimated hours (670) were attributed to required Method 5 and Method 9 
performance testing of affected facilities. Under the proposed revised 
NSPS, a 1-hour Method 9 test is allowed in lieu of the Method 5 test 
for individual, enclosed storage bins. In addition, the duration of 
Method 9 tests for most fugitive emission sources and individual, 
enclosed storage bin emission sources has been reduced from 3 hours to 
1 hour. Also, plant owners or operators are allowed to submit one 
notification of actual startup for several affected facilities in a 
production line that begin operation the same day, in lieu of multiple 
notifications for each affected facility. The proposed revised NSPS is 
also waiving the General Provisions requirement to submit a 
notification of anticipated startup for each affected facility. 
Therefore, the revised annual estimated industry recordkeeping and 
reporting burden and costs for an owner or operator of a new 
nonmetallic mineral processing plant are 480 hours and $15,800, the 
majority of which is due to performance testing. This represents an 
estimated reduction in the average emission testing, recordkeeping and 
reporting burden of 340 hours and $11,300 for a new plant in the first 
year. This collection of information is estimated to have an average 
annual government recordkeeping and reporting burden of 320 hours over 
the first 3 years. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose 
or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the 
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of 
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR ch. 15.
    Comments are requested on the reductions discussed in this 
preamble. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, OPPE Regulatory 
Information Division (2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. The final rule will respond to any public comments on 
the reduced information collection requirements contained in this 
proposal.
2. Executive Order 12866 Review
    Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the 
EPA must determine whether the proposed regulatory action is 
``significant'' and therefore subject to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of this Executive Order to 
prepare a regulatory impact analysis (RIA). The Order defines 
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety in State, local or tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that the proposed revisions to the standards are ``not 
significant'' because none of the above criteria are triggered by the 
proposed revisions. The proposed revisions would decrease the cost of 
complying with the revised standards.
3. Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement including a cost-benefit 
analysis for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year.
    The EPA has determined that today's action, which proposes 
revisions and clarifications to the existing regulation, decreases the 
cost of compliance with this proposed revised regulation. Therefore, 
the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this 
proposed action.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires Federal agencies to give special consideration to the impact 
of regulations on small entities, which are small businesses, small 
organizations, and small governments. The major purpose of the RFA is 
to keep paperwork and regulatory requirements from getting out of 
proportion to the scale of the entities being regulated, without 
compromising the objectives of, in this case, the Act.
    If a regulation is likely to have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, the EPA may give special 
consideration to those small entities when analyzing regulatory 
alternatives and drafting the regulation. The impact of this regulation 
upon small businesses was analyzed as part of the economic impact 
analysis performed for the proposed standards for the nonmetallic 
minerals processing plants (48 FR 39566, August 31, 1983). As a result 
of this analysis, plants operating at small capacities were exempted 
from the requirements of the standards. Today's proposed revisions to 
the standards do not affect these exempted small plants; that is, they 
continue to be exempted from the standards. In addition, the main 
thrust of the proposed revisions to the standards is a reduction of the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of 
all affected facilities.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because the impact of the 
proposed rule is not significant.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: June 17, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend 40 
CFR part 60, subpart OOO as follows:

[[Page 33420]]

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7411, 7414, 7416, 7429 and 7601.

    2. It is proposed to amend 60.670 by revising paragraphs (a) and 
(d)(2), and adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.670  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this 
section, the provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following 
affected facilities in fixed or portable nonmetallic mineral processing 
plants: each crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, bucket 
elevator, belt conveyor, bagging operation, storage bin, enclosed truck 
or railcar loading station. All facilities located in underground mines 
are exempted from the provisions of this subpart. Except as required in 
Sec. 60.676(g), the provisions of this subpart do not apply to wet 
screening operations and associated conveyors downstream of the wet 
screening operation in the production line up to, but not including, 
the next crusher, grinding mill, or dry screening operation.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) An owner or operator complying with this paragraph shall submit 
the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).
* * * * *
    (f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of 
affected facilities subject to this subpart.
    2a. It is proposed to add Table 1 to Subpart OOO to read as 
follows:

           Table 1.--Applicability of Subpart A to Subpart OOO          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applies to                          
      Subpart A reference          subpart OOO?           Comment       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60.1  Applicability...........  Yes.                                    
60.2  Definitions.............  Yes.                                    
60.3  Units and abbreviations.  Yes.                                    
60.4  Address--(a)............  Yes.                                    
      (b).....................  Yes.                                    
60.5  Deter. of construction    Yes.                                    
 or modification.                                                       
60.6  Review of plans.........  Yes.                                    
60.7  Notification and          Yes                Except in (a)(2),    
 recordkeeping.                                     report of           
                                                    anticipated date of 
                                                    initial startup is  
                                                    not required        
                                                    [60.676(g)].        
60.8  Performance tests.......  Yes.               Except in (d), after 
                                                    30 days notice for  
                                                    an initially        
                                                    scheduled perf.     
                                                    test, any           
                                                    rescheduled perf.   
                                                    test requires 7 days
                                                    notice, not 30 days 
                                                    [60.675(g)].        
60.9  Availability of           Yes.                                    
 information.                                                           
60.10  State authority........  Yes.                                    
60.11  Compliance with          Yes                Except in (b), under 
 standards and maintenance                          certain conditions  
 requirements.                                      [sec. 60.675 (c)(4) 
                                                    and (c)(5)], Method 
                                                    9 observation may be
                                                    reduced from 3 hrs. 
                                                    to 1 hr.            
60.12  Circumvention..........  Yes.                                    
60.13  Monitoring requirements  Yes.                                    
60.14  Modification...........  Yes.                                    
60.15  Reconstruction.........  Yes.                                    
60.16  Priority list..........  Yes.                                    
60.17  Incorporations by        Yes.                                    
 reference.                                                             
60.18  General control device   No                 Flares will not be   
 requirements.                                      used to comply with 
                                                    the emission limits.
60.19  General notification     Yes.                                    
 and reporting requirements.                                            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.671 by adding in alphabetical 
order the definition of Wet screening operation to read as follows:


Sec. 60.671  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Wet screening operation means a screening facility designed and 
operated at all times to remove unwanted material from the product by a 
washing process whereby the product is completely saturated with water.
* * * * *
    4. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.672 by removing the word ``or'' 
after paragraph (a)(1), by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), and by 
adding paragraphs (f) and (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.672  Standard for particulate matter.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Contain particulate matter in excess of 0.05 g/dscm.
    (2) * * *
    (b) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum 
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but 
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under 
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this 
subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any 
transfer point on belt conveyors or from any other affected facility 
any fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 10 percent opacity, 
except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of this 
section.
    (c) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum 
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but 
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under 
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any crusher, at which a capture system is not used, 
fugitive emissions which exhibit greater than 15 percent opacity.
* * * * *
    (f) On and after the sixtieth day after achieving the maximum 
production rate at which the affected facility will be operated, but 
not later than 180 days after initial startup as required under 
Sec. 60.11, no owner or operator shall cause to be discharged into the 
atmosphere from any baghouse that only

[[Page 33421]]

controls emissions from an individual enclosed storage bin, stack 
emissions which exhibit greater than 7 percent opacity.
    (g) Owners or operators of multiple storage bins with combined 
stack emissions shall comply with the emission limits in paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    5. It is proposed to amend Sec. 60.675 by revising paragraph (d) 
and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.675  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (d) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions 
standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) and 
where there are no individual readings greater than 10% opacity and 
where there are no more than 3 readings of 10% opacity for the first 
hour of testing of this affected facility and the opacity of stack 
emissions from any baghouse that only controls emissions from an 
individual, enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f), using Method 9, 
the duration of the Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour (10 6-minute 
averages).
* * * * *
    (g) If, after 30 days notice for an initially scheduled performance 
test, there is a delay (due to operational problems, etc.) in 
conducting any rescheduled performance test required in this section, 
the owner or operator of an affected facility shall submit to the 
Administrator at least 7 days prior notice of any rescheduled 
performance test.
    6. Section 60.676 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b), revising paragraph (f), redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph 
(j) and revising newly designated (j), and adding new paragraphs (g), 
(h), and (i) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.676  Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (b) [reserved]
* * * * *
    (f) The owner or operator of any affected facility shall submit 
written reports of the results of all performance tests conducted to 
demonstrate compliance with the standards set forth in Sec. 60.672, 
including reports of opacity observations made using Method 9 to 
demonstrate compliance with Sec. 60.672 (b), (c), and (f), and reports 
of observations using Method 22 to demonstrate compliance with 
Sec. 60.672(e).
    (g) The owner or operator of any wet screening operation and 
associated conveyor shall keep a record describing the location of 
these operations and shall submit an initial report describing the 
location of these operations within 30 days. If, subsequent to the 
initial report, any screening operation ceases to operate as wet 
screening, the owner or operator shall submit a report of this change 
and shall immediately comply with all of the requirements of the 
regulation for an affected facility. These reports shall be submitted 
within 30 days following such change.
    (h) The Subpart A requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) for 
notification of the anticipated date of initial startup of an affected 
facility shall be waived for owners or operators of affected facilities 
regulated under this subpart.
    (i) A notification of the actual date of initial startup of each 
affected facility shall be submitted to the Administrator. For a 
combination of affected facilities in a production line that begin 
actual initial startup on the same day, a single notification of 
startup may be submitted by the owner or operator to the Administrator. 
The notification shall be postmarked within 15 days after such date and 
shall include a description of each affected facility, equipment 
manufacturer, and serial number of the equipment, if available.
    (j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 
section 111 of the Act, approves reporting requirements or an 
alternative means of compliance surveillance adopted by such States. In 
that event, affected facilities within the State will be relieved of 
the obligation to comply with the reporting requirements of this 
section, provided that they comply with requirements established by the 
State.

[FR Doc. 96-16012 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P