[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31351-31361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14856]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[IL-64-2-5807; FRL-5836-2]
RIN 2060-AG33


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates revisions and clarifications to 
several provisions of the standards of performance for nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants, which were proposed in the Federal Register 
on June 27, 1996 (61 FR 33415). This action presents the final 
revisions to the applicability, definitions, test methods and 
procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the 
standards, and the basis for those revisions. The affected industries 
and numerical emission limits remain unchanged.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 9, 1997. See the Supplementary Information section 
concerning judicial review.

ADDRESSES: Docket. Docket No. A-95-46, containing information 
considered by the EPA in development of the promulgated revisions to 
the new source performance standards (NSPS) is available for public 
inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 4 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 docket materials.

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 
promulgated rule are new, modified, or reconstructed affected 
facilities in nonmetallic mineral processing plants that process any of 
the 18 nonmetallic minerals listed in Table 1.

[[Page 31352]]



               Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Entity category                        Description          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial............................  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 
                                         processing plants.             
Federal...............................  Same as above                   
Government............................                                  
State/Local/..........................  Same as above                   
Tribal................................                                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The provisions of this final rule apply to the following affected 
facilities at 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. To determine whether your facility is regulated by 
this final action, you should 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.

Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of the final 
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of 
today's publication of this final rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the 
Act, the revised requirements that are the subject of today's notice 
may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by 
the EPA to enforce these requirements.
    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Background and Public Participation
II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
    A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS
    B. Responses to Comments
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements
    C. Office of Management and Budget Reviews
    1. Paperwork Reduction Act
    2. Executive Order 12866
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance
    F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

I. Background and Public Participation

    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 reduction, considering 
costs, nonair quality health, and environmental and energy impacts.
    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, the 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, the NSA 
requested that several of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
be reduced or eliminated.
    Before proposal of the amendments to the NSPS, meetings were held 
with representatives of several companies regulated under the NSPS for 
nonmetallic mineral processing plants and the NSA to discuss potential 
changes to the NSPS (subpart OOO). The EPA also received input from 
representatives of State and local environmental agencies before the 
proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register.
    The amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for 
nonmetallic mineral processing plants were proposed on June 27, 1996 
(61 FR 33415). The public comment period ended on August 26, 1996. 
Industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and environmental 
groups had the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions and to 
provide additional information during the public comment period that 
followed proposal. A public hearing was offered at proposal to provide 
interested persons the opportunity for oral presentation of data, 
views, or arguments concerning the proposed amended rule. However, no 
one requested a hearing and, therefore, no hearing was held. Forty-
three comment letters were received. The commenters included industry, 
one national and several State trade associations, several State 
regulatory agencies, and one environmental consultant. These comments 
were considered and, today's final amended rule reflects consideration 
of these comments. The public comments that were received along with 
EPA's responses to the comments on the proposed amended rule are 
summarized in this preamble. The summary of comments and responses 
serves as the basis for the revisions that have been made to the final 
amended rule between proposal and promulgation. The following section 
discusses changes made as a result of public comments on the proposed 
amendments to the NSPS. A more detailed discussion of comments and 
responses is contained in the docket (Docket No. A-95-46; Item V-C-1.)

II. Comments and Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

A. Summary of Changes to the Proposed Revisions to the NSPS

    There was general support for the amendments which reduced or 
eliminated several of the paperwork requirements on the industry, 
greatly reduced the costs of emission testing without sacrificing air 
quality, provided a table specifying the applicability of subpart A 
(General Provisions for part 60) to subpart OOO affected facilities, 
and clarified that facilities located in underground mines are not 
subject to the NSPS. The commenters requested further clarification of 
the applicability of the NSPS to certain operations, additional 
reductions in the Method 9 test duration for certain affected 
facilities, and further reductions in the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.
    The following is a summary of the changes made to the proposed 
revisions as a result of EPA's evaluation of the public comments. Some 
of these changes are clarifications of EPA's original intent. The 
rationale for these changes is discussed in section II.B.
    1. Section 60.670, Applicability and designation of affected 
facility, is revised:
    (a) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that stand-alone 
screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding mills are 
not subject to the NSPS;
    (b) To clarify the original intent of the NSPS that crushers and 
grinding mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of 
nonmetallic minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement, and 
subsequent affected facilities in the production line up to, but not 
including, the first storage silo or bin are subject to the NSPS; and
    (c) To remove the exemption of wet screening and associated belt 
conveyors from all provisions of this subpart

[[Page 31353]]

except reporting and recordkeeping because these sources are subject to 
all provisions of this subpart except for Method 9 opacity tests.
    2. Section 60.671, Definitions, is revised to add a definition of 
wet mining operation and to make minor changes in the proposed 
definition of wet screening operation.
    3. Section 60.672, Standard for particulate matter, is revised to 
require no visible emissions from
    (a) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations, 
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that 
process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or 
storage bin in the production line;
    (b) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in 
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process 
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage 
bin in the production line.
    4. Section 60.675, Test methods and procedures, is revised:
    (a) To exempt from the initial requirement in Sec. 60.11 for Method 
9 emission testing;
    (i) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations, 
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in the production line that 
process saturated materials up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or 
storage bin in the production line;
    (ii) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in 
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process 
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage 
bin in the production line.
    (b) To correct typographical error in paragraph (b).
    (c) To allow crushers without emission capture systems to reduce 
the duration of Method 9 observations of fugitive emissions for 
compliance from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-
minute averages) if there are no individual readings greater than 15 
percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for 
the first 1-hour period.
    (d) To add wording to clarify that if qualifying conditions are not 
met by affected facilities subject to applicable fugitive emission 
limits, then 3 hours, rather than 1 hour, of Method 9 testing would be 
required to determine compliance.
    5. Section 60.676, Reporting and recordkeeping, is revised:
    (a) To require that both the address of the home office and the 
current address/location of the portable aggregate plant be included in 
the notification of the actual date of initial startup;
    (b) To require the reporting within 30 days of any affected 
facility that changes the saturated or unsaturated nature of the 
material being processed. The affected facility is then subject to the 
provisions of the standard applicable to the type of material being 
processed.

B. Responses to Comments

    Several commenters remarked that the proposed changes to the rule 
were an important milestone in EPA's partnering efforts with the 
regulated community to help reduce the administrative burden of subpart 
OOO while maintaining protection of the health and welfare of the 
general public.
    The comments, the issues they address, and the EPA's responses to 
comments are presented in the following sections according to the 
following topics: (1) Applicability; (2) Definitions; (3) Standard for 
Particulate Matter; (4) Test Methods and Procedures; and (5) Reporting 
and Recordkeeping.
1. Applicability
    (a) Comment. One commenter disagreed with the Agency's 
clarification to exempt nonmetallic mineral processing facilities 
located in underground mines from subpart OOO.
    Response. Underground mining operations will continue to be 
exempted from this regulation. As stated in the preamble to the 
proposed amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for 
nonmetallic mineral processing plants, this regulation does not apply 
to facilities located in underground mines because 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 
regulation. In addition, a response to a comment in the background 
information document for the original promulgated standards (EPA-450/3-
83-001b, April 1985, page 2-44) stated specifically that mining 
operations are not covered under the proposed or final standards for 
nonmetallic mineral processing plants.
    (b) Comment. Four commenters were concerned whether ``wet mining 
operations'' and subsequent processing of the mineral material should 
be subject to this NSPS. Two of these commenters requested EPA to 
include wet dredging operations/equipment in the definition of ``wet 
screening operation'' to exempt those operations from all NSPS 
requirements except for the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
One of the two commenters suggested that the equipment exemption 
include all screening, crushing and transfer operations (conveyors) 
associated with dredging operations up to, but not including, the next 
crusher, grinding mill or dry screening operation in the production 
line of the plant. According to the commenter, fugitive dust emissions 
from wet dredging operations have never been recorded during any site 
visit by this State agency.
    One of the previously mentioned commenters requested that overland 
conveyor systems that are transporting sand and gravel that has been 
mined below the water table be exempted from testing requirements. An 
alternative performance testing program for these field conveyor 
systems previously approved by an EPA Regional Office was recommended. 
This alternative testing program consisted of reducing the Method 9 
testing from 3 hours to 1 hour; conducting the Method 9 test at the 
first and last transfer points in a series of transfer points; and 
waiving the performance test for all intermediate transfer points if no 
visible emissions are observed at the first and last transfer points. 
Another commenter requested an exemption from emission testing 
requirements or total exemption for facilities, such as sand and 
gravel, dredge, and marine limestone, that mine and process a ``wet'' 
product with an inherent natural moisture content that does not have 
the potential to create emissions. This commenter stated that many 
State agencies already offer testing exemptions for these types of 
facilities.
    Another commenter suggested adding a definition of ``wet mining 
operation'' in the regulation and revising the rule to exempt 
operations at mining facilities that extract limestone, dolomite or 
sand and gravel from deposits below the water table and saturated with 
water except for reporting requirements.
    Response. The EPA has considered these comments and agrees that 
there is no potential for emissions from belt conveyors transporting 
nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with water. Also, there is no 
potential for emissions from other processes such as screens and bucket 
elevators that handle nonmetallic minerals that are saturated with 
water. Therefore, belt conveyors, screening operations and bucket 
elevators that process materials saturated with water from wet mining 
operations up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or stockpile in the 
production line are exempted from the initial Method 9 performance 
testing under Sec. 60.11 but are required to have no visible emissions 
from these sources.

[[Page 31354]]

The no visible emission standard would allow plant and enforcement 
officials to verify that the materials being processed were indeed 
saturated with water.
    If an affected facility that processes saturated material later 
processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent 
to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility 
becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this 
subpart and the 10 percent opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).
    As recommended by the last mentioned commenter, a definition of 
``Wet mining operation'' has been added to ``Definitions'' in 
Sec. 60.671 to identify which affected facilities are exempt from 
Method 9 emission testing. To assure no emissions are possible, the 
definition will state that the nonmetallic mineral must be saturated.
    Crushers reduce the size of the process material and in so doing 
increase the surface area of the material being processed. This crushed 
material then has new surfaces which are not saturated and have the 
potential to create air emissions. Therefore, crushers at dredging 
operations are not exempt.
    (c) Comment. A commenter requested clarification whether the NSPS 
applies to stand-alone screening operations at plants without any 
crushers.
    Response. The commenter is correct that EPA did not intend to 
regulate stand-alone screening operations at plants that have no 
crushers. Subpart OOO affected facilities begin with the initial 
crushing or grinding operation at the plant. Plants that do not employ 
crushing or grinding, by definition, are not considered nonmetallic 
mineral processing plants and thus are not subject to subpart OOO.
    (d) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed exemption of wet 
screening operations and associated conveyors and recommended that the 
wet screening exemption be expanded to include all pieces of equipment 
where the use of water is necessary to the operation of the process, 
such as pugmills. Another commenter believed that the term ``dry'' in 
the definition of wet screening operation was confusing because a 
screen operated downstream from a wash screen will handle material that 
is saturated by the wash process. Also, another commenter recommended 
that the wet screening operations and associated downstream conveyors 
exemption be expanded to include loadout bins and other wet process 
operations.
    Response. Equipment other than crushers and grinding mills where 
the use of water may be necessary to the operation, such as pugmills 
used for reblending of materials at the end of the process, are not 
affected facilities and therefore not subject to subpart OOO. 
Therefore, no further change has been made to expand the wet screening 
exemption as requested by the first-mentioned commenter.
    Screening is the process by which material is separated according 
to size. Screening may be performed either wet or dry. Wet screening 
where the product is saturated with water removes material from the 
product, such as silt, clay, grit, etc., or separates marketable fines 
by a washing process and there is no potential for air emissions.
    Wet screening operations, which use a washing process, and 
subsequent screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors 
up to the next crusher, grinding mill, or storage bin are also exempt 
from Method 9 initial performance tests per Sec. 60.11 and are required 
to meet a no visible emissions standard. To assure there is no 
potential for emissions from these operations following the wet 
screens, the material that is being processed is required to be 
saturated. The no visible emission standard is a means for both plant 
and enforcement personnel to verify that the material being processed 
is indeed saturated.
    If an affected facility processes saturated material later 
processes unsaturated material, a report of this change shall be sent 
to EPA within 30 days of this change. Also, this affected facility 
becomes subject to the Method 9 opacity test requirements of this 
subpart and the opacity limit in Sec. 60.672(b).
    (e) Comment. A commenter requested clarification as to whether 
recycled asphalt operations are covered under the NSPS. The commenter 
attached a memo from an EPA Region which stated that during a visit to 
a recycled asphalt facility, nonmetallic minerals of two to three 
inches within the recycled asphalt were being crushed to less than half 
an inch. The Region stated if the nonmetallic mineral is crushed or 
ground by a recycled asphalt crusher, the crusher would be subject to 
this NSPS.
    Response. The EPA concurs with this determination as this is the 
intent of the rule. A new, modified or reconstructed asphalt crusher or 
grinding mill that reduces the size of a nonmetallic mineral embedded 
in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected facilities up to, 
but not including, the storage silo or bin at a hot mix asphalt 
facility are subject to subpart OOO. A sentence has been added to 
Sec. 60.670 Applicability that such a crusher or grinding mill is 
subject to this NSPS.
2. Definitions
    (a) Comment. Three commenters fully supported the Agency's 
exemption of wet screening operations, except for reporting and 
recordkeeping from the NSPS, but requested that the definition of ``wet 
screening operation'' be revised to remove the term ``completely'' in 
the definition because they believe it gives the connotation that the 
rock is wet throughout and because the term is subject to various 
interpretations by industry and regulatory personnel. In addition, one 
commenter requested that the Agency change the term ``unwanted material 
to ``fines'' in the definition. Quite often the ``unwanted material,'' 
or fines, that are washed from the rock surface on a washing screen are 
collected and sold as a natural or manufactured sand or other 
marketable product. Also, one commenter suggested that the definition 
of wet screening operation be changed to a definition of ``wet 
process'' to include other wet process operations such as log washers, 
classifiers, sand screws, pugmills, belt presses, and dewatering 
screens. However, if this change is not made, then he recommended 
further defining the terms ``saturated'' and ``unwanted material'' to 
avoid numerous interpretation conflicts.
    Response. After review and consideration of these comments, the EPA 
has decided to make changes in the definition of ``wet screening 
operation.'' The term ``completely'' has been deleted from the 
definition. ``Saturated'' is defined as ``to soak or load to capacity'' 
and therefore the term ``completely'' is not necessary to convey the 
intent. Also, the revised definition includes the separation of 
marketable fines and now more closely describes the types of screening 
operations in the wet/wash end of a nonmetallic minerals processing 
plant without changing the original intent of the definition. It is not 
necessary to define ``unwanted material'' in the definition, which 
could include silt, grit, etc., as requested.
    ``Wet screening operation'' is the appropriate term to be defined, 
not ``wet process'' as suggested by one of the commenters. The other 
processes cited are not affected facilities and therefore are not 
subject to this NSPS. As stated in the preamble to the proposed 
amendments, there is no potential for air emissions from either 
screening or conveying operations in the wash process.
3. Test Methods and Procedures
    (a) Comment. Several commenters maintained that the cost of dual 
compliance tests for both the stack

[[Page 31355]]

emission limit and stack opacity standard was prohibitive to the 
industry and requested that Method 9 testing be the sole test for 
compliance of any affected facility. In addition, another commenter 
disagreed with the dual stack emission testing of particulate and 
opacity which he believes greatly increases the testing costs with no 
data to support the environmental benefits.
    Response. This NSPS requires an initial performance test to measure 
the concentration of particulate matter in stack emissions for each 
affected facility because the EPA has found that facilities with 
similar control devices may not have the same emissions characteristics 
due to variables in the processes, process operating conditions, and 
control system design, installation, and operation. Because of this 
variability, performance tests are necessary to demonstrate the 
capability of each facility to meet the PM emission limit. The stack 
opacity test is used as a continuing compliance tool during any 
subsequent inspections by State and local air pollution agency 
personnel. During the development of this NSPS, the cost of performance 
testing was estimated and found to be reasonable and no new data was 
submitted by the commenter.
    (b) Comment. Two national trade associations and one State trade 
association stated that many nonmetallic mineral producers that use 
enclosed aggregate storage bins often have more than one of these bins 
ducted to a fabric filter collection system and requested that the NSPS 
require only Method 9 testing for single fabric filter systems that 
control emissions from more than one enclosed storage bin.
    Response. As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments to 
the NSPS, Method 5 testing cannot be performed for baghouses that only 
control emissions from individual, enclosed storage bins due to very 
low air flows from individual, enclosed storage bins. However, if 
emissions from multiple storage bins are ducted to a single fabric 
collection system, the air flow is high enough for Method 5 testing, 
accordingly, the combined emissions are subject to both Method 5 stack 
emission testing and Method 9 opacity testing for determining 
compliance. This requirement is specified in Sec. 60.672(g).
    (c) Comment. A commenter referred to the original proposed rule for 
subpart OOO that was published on August 31, 1983 (48 FR 39574), which 
stated that ``Performance tests would not be required for fugitive 
emission sources.'' Fugitive emissions as defined in that proposal 
include emissions from crushers, conveyors, and screens that have no 
capture system. According to the commenter, neither the current rule 
nor the proposed amended rule for subpart OOO contain language that 
would require performance testing immediately after startup for 
fugitive emission sources. According to the commenter, Secs. 60.675 (b) 
and (c) explain only how to determine compliance for the fugitive 
emission limitations, not that performance testing is required. The 
State agency requested that the wording, and true intent, of subpart 
OOO be clarified so as to explicitly state whether performance testing 
for fugitive emissions is required.
    Response. The intent of subpart OOO is to require initial 
compliance testing for fugitive emissions from applicable affected 
facilities. The commenter referred to the statement in the proposed 
rule published on August 31, 1983 at page 48 FR 39574. This statement 
was in regard to performance tests by Method 5, which are not 
applicable to fugitive emission sources. It was not intended to exempt 
fugitive emission sources from initial compliance using Method 9 or 
Method 22 as appropriate.
    Section 60.8 of the General Provisions for 40 CFR part 60 requires 
performance testing for affected facilities in each subpart 
(regulation) and Sec. 60.11 contains requirements for compliance with 
opacity standards. Each subpart specifies the applicable test methods 
and any additional test procedures or exemptions specific to the 
affected facility being regulated. The test methods and procedures for 
affected facilities under subpart OOO, Sec. 60.675, require performance 
tests on fugitive emission sources. This is also indicated by the 
General Provisions requirements which are included in Table 1 of 
Sec. 60.670 in these amendments to this NSPS. This Table has been added 
to make clear in the regulation itself the requirements of this NSPS.
    (d) Comment. There was total support in the public comments for the 
proposed reduction of visible emission testing from 3 hours to 1 hour 
(subject to the level of visible emissions observed during the first 
hour) for fugitive emission sources. However, one commenter stated that 
since crushers without capture systems are allowed 15 percent opacity, 
a 3-hour test should not be required if three 10 percent opacity 
readings are observed in the first hour. The commenter asserted that a 
crusher operating uniformly at 5 percent opacity with several 10 
percent puffs or constantly at 10 percent is well within compliance. 
Several commenters also strongly believe that affected facilities 
should be allowed to demonstrate compliance during the 1-hour test with 
the existing opacity limits that are applicable for each affected 
facility, i.e., 15 percent for crushers at which a capture system is 
not used and 10 percent for other affected facilities as required in 
the NSPS.
    Response. The proposed revised rule did not change the existing 15 
percent opacity limit for crushers without capture systems as 
interpreted by several of the commenters, nor did the proposed revised 
rule allow the Method 9 test reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour for these 
crushers. However, the EPA's review of visible emission data submitted 
by a State agency for crushers without capture systems showed that 
these crushers generally had no emissions during 1-hour Method 9 
observations. The visible emission data was from crushers using wet 
suppression and from screens and conveyor transfer points without 
capture systems. The test data showed 3 crushers with all Method 9 
readings at 0 percent and 1 crusher with a few readings at 5 percent; 1 
conveyor (prior to crushing) test showed several readings at 10 percent 
and some at 15 percent. Therefore, based on this test data, the Method 
9 emission test period for crushers without capture systems is reduced 
from 3 hours to 1 hour to demonstrate compliance with the 15 percent 
fugitive emissions limit if there are no individual readings greater 
than 15 percent opacity and there are no more than 3 readings of 15 
percent for the first 1-hour period. If these qualifying conditions are 
not met during the first hour, then testing of crushers without capture 
systems would be required for 3 hours.
    (e) Comment. According to one commenter, the proposed revisions 
fail to specify what an inspector or industry personnel must do to 
demonstrate compliance if visible emissions are seen using Method 22 
outside a building which does not comply with Sec. 60.672(e). The 
commenter stated that the inspector must enter the building in these 
cases. As an example, the commenter cited an incident that took place 
after promulgation of the original rule in which an EPA inspector found 
it impossible to read opacity inside a building located at a rock 
crushing plant due to the lack of proper visibility. The commenter 
stated that in some cases there was no room for an inspector to enter, 
much less read the opacity from affected facilities. The commenter also 
referred to OSHA rules which define such structures as confined spaces 
and caution against exposing personnel to

[[Page 31356]]

such dangers. The commenter recommended that if visible emissions are 
seen outside the building and it is unsafe to enter the building then 
Method 9 readings should be taken outside the building. The recommended 
opacity limit would be the same as allowed under Sec. 60.672 (b) or 
(c).
    Response. The commenter was concerned that the original rule failed 
to address what must be done if the visible emission requirements that 
apply to emissions observed outside the building are not met. Section 
60.672(e)(standard for particulate matter) clearly states that 
compliance is shown by complying with either Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and 
(c) or by complying with Sec. 60.672(e). Also, the requirements are 
discussed in the preamble for the final rule published on August 1, 
1985; at 50 FR 31333 and 31334. Accordingly, no change is required to 
the regulation.
    This NSPS is a national standard and it is impossible to prepare a 
regulation that addresses every possible situation. This NSPS gives 
industry flexibility by giving them the option of complying with 
Sec. 60.672(e) or with Sec. 60.672 (a), (b) and (c). Section 60.672(e) 
allows no visible emissions from a building except from a vent. 
Emission limits from a vent are the same as for any stack emissions; 
0.05 g/dscm and 7 percent opacity. Thus, by complying with 
Sec. 60.672(e) no one is required to enter the building. Sections 
60.672 (a),(b) and (c) limit the stack emissions as mentioned above as 
well as setting Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions from 
individual affected facilities. If Method 9 limits are set for the 
building as suggested by the commenter, there is the potential of 
allowing dilution air to be added to general building ventilation. 
Also, the Method 9 opacity limits for fugitive emissions as shown in 
Secs. 60.672 (b) and (c) are based on emission test data obtained while 
observing emissions from individual affected facilities such as 
crushers and belt conveyors and not from buildings containing these 
affected facilities. Therefore, there will be no change made to the 
proposed revisions based on this comment.
    (f) Comment. One commenter recommended waiving the Method 9 opacity 
compliance testing requirement for screens and conveyor transfer points 
subject to this NSPS pursuant to Sec. 60.8(b)(4) of the General 
Provisions, subpart A (which waives the requirement for performance 
tests because an owner or operator has demonstrated compliance to EPA 
by other means). The commenter based this request on more than 80 
emissions evaluations performed at nonmetallic mineral processing 
plants during the past nine years which demonstrate that these affected 
facilities are in compliance with the opacity standard for fugitive 
emissions. If a waiver of the initial testing requirement is not 
granted, it was suggested that the cut-off point as applied to the 
testing requirement for 3 hours of testing be 50 percent of the largest 
applicable federally enforceable opacity standard.
    A Regional Air Pollution Control Agency provided copies of a number 
of actual Method 9 observation sheets that illustrated their experience 
of gathering mostly ``zeros'' when conducting the subpart OOO visible 
emission readings and offered these as corroboration that the proposed 
Method 9 testing reduction from 3 hours to 1 hour, if there is not a 
visible emission problem, should be promulgated. The visible emission 
data were from crushers using wet suppression and from screens and 
conveyor transfer points.
    Response. With regard to the first comment, the EPA does not 
believe that a waiver of the initial compliance testing requirement for 
screening operations and conveyor transfer points is justified under 
Sec. 60.8(b)(4). A Method 9 performance test is only required one time 
(initially) under the regulation. This performance test is necessary to 
demonstrate that the capture system is properly designed, installed and 
operated to comply with this NSPS. The emission test data submitted by 
the local agency support the use of this performance test. As to the 
suggestion that the cut-off point for requiring 3 hours of testing be 
50 percent of the largest applicable federally enforceable opacity 
standard, the EPA believes that the proposed qualifying conditions in 
Sec. 60.675(d) (no reading greater than 10 percent or 3 readings equal 
to 10 percent) are more appropriate since these were based on several 
emission tests submitted by industry and air pollution control 
agencies. No emission test data were submitted by the commenter.
    (g) Comment. A commenter requested further consideration of 
alternate testing procedures for periodic operations such as enclosed 
storage bins and loadout stations. The commenter provided procedures 
approved previously by an EPA Regional Office and requested that these 
procedures be incorporated into the final rule. The EPA Regional Office 
agreed that if a storage tank's baghouse exhaust is in compliance with 
this NSPS by using Method 9, Method 5 particulate emission testing 
would not be required. Also the EPA Regional Office approved Method 9 
testing that was conducted over two or three loading cycles of the 
product storage tank in lieu of 3 hours of Method 9 observations. For 
truck loadout stations, 30 minutes of visible emission testing were 
allowed.
    Response. As noted by the commenter, the proposed amended rule, 
60.672(f), requires individual, enclosed storage bins to only comply 
with the opacity standard. Also, the testing period has been reduced 
from three hours to one hour. Section 60.8(b) of the General Provisions 
allows the use of alternatives to performance testing based on the 
review and approval by EPA of relevant supporting information. The 
supporting data and information in requests for alternative testing are 
evaluated for approval by EPA on a case-by-case basis. Even though 
these alternate testing procedures that reduced the duration of Method 
9 testing were approved by EPA under certain conditions for certain 
affected facilities, no emission test data were submitted to warrant 
incorporating these changes into the final rule for regulating such 
affected facilities throughout the entire industry.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    (a) Comment. Several commenters were opposed to the requirement 
under Sec. 60.4(a) of the General Provisions that all notifications, 
reports, etc. be sent in duplicate to both the EPA Regional Office and 
one copy to the State regulatory agency, provided the State has been 
delegated authority for the NSPS. Also, the commenters recommended that 
if the State has been delegated authority for this NSPS, notifications, 
reports, etc. should only be sent to the States. According to the 
commenters, for those States not delegated NSPS authority, 
notifications and correspondence should be sent only to the appropriate 
EPA Regional Office.
    Response. The submittals of duplicate copies of notifications, 
reports, etc. to the EPA Regional Offices and a copy to State agencies 
with delegated authority are needed so that both groups can keep track 
of this NSPS.
    The commenters are correct that if a State has not been delegated 
authority; notifications, reports, etc. are required to be sent only to 
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
    (b) Comment. One commenter suggested that EPA consider the use of 
fax or telephone notifications to States of the date of actual 
construction and initial start-up.
    Response. On September 11, 1996 (61 FR 47840), revisions to the 
General Provisions, subpart A, 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63, were 
proposed allowing the use of electronic notifications if

[[Page 31357]]

approved by the relevant permitting authority.
    (c) Comment. One commenter supported the proposed revision that 
allowed a single notification for the actual date of initial startup 
for multiple affected facilities that plan to begin initial startup 
simultaneously (on the same day), in circumstances where, due to delays 
and the time required to install the affected facilities, startup of 
every affected facilities does not occur at the same time. Due to these 
different startup times, the commenter requested a single notification 
of startup for all affected facilities that startup within a 30-day 
timeframe.
    Response. If a 30-day window were allowed, sufficient prior 
notification to the State or local agencies for the first affected 
facilities that commence operations would not be provided. Companies 
that choose to submit a single notification of initial startup for 
multiple affected facilities must do appropriate planning to avoid such 
simultaneous equipment installation delays. If such equipment 
installation delays cannot be avoided, then a notification of initial 
startup for each affected facility is required. Accordingly, a change 
to accommodate this request is not appropriate.
    (d) Comment. One commenter requested that the Agency eliminate the 
notification in subpart A, General Provisions, Sec. 60.7(a)(1), of the 
date of when construction commences of an affected facility (postmarked 
no later than 30 days after construction commences) because the company 
did not believe it served any useful purpose.
    Response. The requirement under the General Provisions, 
Sec. 60.7(a)(1), for an owner or operator to notify the EPA or State 
agencies of the date of construction of an affected facility is 
necessary for tracking purposes and enforcement. The EPA or State 
agencies enforcing the standards have to track, or keep records of, new 
equipment at both new plants and capacity expansions at existing 
plants. Administrative reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
these standards are similar to those for other NSPS.
    (e) Comment. One commenter suggested that under Sec. 60.676(i), the 
current address/location be included in the notification of the actual 
date of initial startup of each affected facility. Many aggregate 
processing plants are portable, and are routinely moved from place-to-
place. In the past, this has led to confusion on where the plant is 
located and where the visible emission observations are going to take 
place. Currently, portable aggregate processing plants in the 
particular State retain the identification address from the owner/
operator's business headquarters. When the portable plant is relocated, 
it is still identified with that home office address even though it is 
actually located elsewhere.
    Response. The EPA agrees that, in the case of portable plants that 
are routinely moved from place to place, the current address/location 
should be included in the notification of the actual date of initial 
startup of such portable plants. Therefore, Sec. 60.676(i) of the final 
amended rule has been revised to require both the home office address 
and the current address/location of the portable plant.
    (f) Comment. One aggregate company requested 14 days lead time, in 
lieu of 30 days for notifications of relocation of portable plants and 
other notifications such as emission testing and date of construction 
because portable plants have trouble anticipating the new location 30 
days in advance.
    Response. Notifications of relocations of portable plants are a 
requirement of individual State and local agencies. For notifications 
of emission testing, these agencies need adequate notice so that they 
can observe opacity and emission testing. Personnel from these agencies 
have stated they need 30 days prior notice to adequately plan to attend 
opacity and emission testing. The requirements for other notifications 
have decreased. The notification requirement of the actual date of 
initial startup under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) is already 15 days and the 
anticipated date of initial startup requirement under Sec. 60.7(a)(2) 
has already been waived under subpart OOO. Therefore, no additional 
changes in notification lead times have been made for portable plants.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information 
considered by the EPA in the development of this final rulemaking. The 
docket is a dynamic file, since material is added throughout the 
rulemaking process. 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)).

B. Clean Air Act Procedural Requirements

    1. The effective date of this revised regulation is June 9, 1997. 
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA provides that standards of performance 
or revisions thereof become effective upon promulgation and apply to 
affected facilities of which the construction or modification was 
commenced after the date of proposal, June 27, 1996.
    2. 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.
    3. External Participation--In accordance with section 117 of the 
Act, publication of the final revisions to the NSPS was preceded by 
consultation with a national trade association composed of 570 member 
companies and several States.
    4. 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 final amended rule 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 final amended rule 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 or final revisions to the rule was 
conducted.

C. 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. 1084.05) to reflect the revised/reduced 
information requirements of the final revised regulation and a copy may 
be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division 
(2136), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., 
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 31358]]

nonmetallic mineral processing plant were estimated at 820 hours and 
$27,060 for the first year of operation. The vast majority of the 
estimated hours (670) was attributed to required Method 5 and Method 9 
performance testing of affected facilities. Under the final 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 fugitive emission sources has been reduced from 3 
hours to 1 hour if qualifying conditions are met as discussed in 
Section II.3.3.d. 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 final 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 $16,000, the 
majority of which is due to performance testing. This represents an 
estimated reduction in the average annual recordkeeping and reporting 
burden of 340 hours and $11,000 per plant. 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 chapter 15.
2. Executive Order 12866
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the 
EPA must determine whether the final 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 final revisions to the NSPS are ``not significant'' 
because none of the above criteria are triggered by the final 
revisions. The final amended rule would decrease the cost of complying 
with the revised NSPS.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, the EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final standards that include a Federal mandate that may result in 
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the 
private sector, of, in the aggregate, $100 million or more. Under 
section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-effective and least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the standard and 
is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires the EPA 
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments 
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the standards.
    The EPA has determined that today's action, which promulgates 
revisions and clarifications to the existing regulation, decreases the 
cost of compliance with this final revised regulation. Also, the final 
revised regulation does not contain any requirements that apply to 
State, local or tribal governments. Therefore, the requirements of the 
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this final 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 Clean Air 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 final 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 final revisions to the standards is a reduction of the 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for owners and operators of 
all affected facilities.
    Thus, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. EPA 
has also determined that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA), as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, the EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting 
Office prior to publication of the rule in today's Federal Register. 
This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

[[Page 31359]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

    Dated: May 30, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60, subpart 
OOO is amended to read as follows:

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, 7412, 7413, 7414, 7470-7479, 
7501-7508, 7601, and 7602.

    2. Section 60.670 is amended 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)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (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. Also, crushers and grinding 
mills at hot mix asphalt facilities that reduce the size of nonmetallic 
minerals embedded in recycled asphalt pavement and subsequent affected 
facilities up to, but not including, the first storage silo or bin are 
subject to the provisions of this subpart.
    (2) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to the following 
operations: All facilities located in underground mines; and stand-
alone screening operations at plants without crushers or grinding 
mills.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (2) An owner or operator complying with paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section shall submit the information required in Sec. 60.676(a).
* * * * *
    (f) Table 1 of this subpart specifies the provisions of subpart A 
of this Part 60 that apply and those that do not apply to owners and 
operators of affected facilities subject to this subpart.

                               Table 1.--Applicability of Subpart A To Subpart OOO                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subpart A reference             Applies to 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, Determination of construction  Yes........................                                                
 or modification.                                                                                               
60.6, Review of plans..............  Yes........................                                                
60.7, Notification and               Yes........................  Except in (a)(2) report of anticipated date of
 recordkeeping.                                                    initial startup is not required (Sec.        
                                                                   60.676(h)).                                  
60.8, Performance tests............  Yes........................  Except in (d), after 30 days notice for an    
                                                                   initially scheduled performance test, any    
                                                                   rescheduled performance test requires 7 days 
                                                                   notice, not 30 days (Sec.  60.675(g)).       
60.9, Availability of information..  Yes........................                                                
60.10, State authority.............  Yes........................                                                
60.11, Compliance with standards     Yes........................  Except in (b) under certain conditions (Secs. 
 and maintenance requirements.                                     60.675 (c)(3) and (c)(4)), Method 9          
                                                                   observation may be reduced from 3 hours to 1 
                                                                   hour. Some affected facilities exempted from 
                                                                   Method 9 tests (Sec.  60.675(h)).            
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 reference.  Yes........................                                                
60.18, General control device......  No.........................  Flares will not be used to comply with the    
                                                                   emission limits.                             
60.19, General notification and      Yes........................                                                
 reporting requirements.                                                                                        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Section 60.671 is amended by adding in alphabetical order the 
definitions of Wet mining operation and Wet screening operation to read 
as follows:


Sec. 60.671  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Wet mining operation means a mining or dredging operation designed 
and operated to extract any nonmetallic mineral regulated under this 
subpart from deposits existing at or below the water table, where the 
nonmetallic mineral is saturated with water.
    Wet screening operation means a screening operation at a 
nonmetallic mineral processing plant which removes unwanted material or 
which separates marketable fines from the product by a washing process 
which is designed and operated at all times such that the product is 
saturated with water.
* * * * *
    4. Section 60.672 is amended by removing the word ``or'' and adding 
the word ``and'' after paragraph (a)(1); by revising paragraphs (b) and 
(c); and by adding paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 60.672  Standard for particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (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 of this part, no owner or operator subject to the provisions 
of this

[[Page 31360]]

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), and (e) 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 of this part, 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 of this part, no owner or operator shall cause to be 
discharged into the atmosphere from any baghouse that controls 
emissions from only 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)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (h) 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, no owner or operator 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere any visible emissions 
from:
    (1) Wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations, 
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in 
the production line up to the next crusher, grinding mill or storage 
bin.
    (2) Screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in 
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, where such 
screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors process 
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage 
bin in the production line.
    5. Section 60.675 is amended by revising paragraph (b), 
introductory text, redesignating paragraphs (c) introductory text, 
(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) as paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(1)(i), (ii), and 
(iii) and adding new paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (g), and (h) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 60.675  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (b) The owner or operator shall determine compliance with the 
particulate matter standards in Sec. 60.672(a) as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) In determining compliance with the opacity of stack emissions 
from any baghouse that controls emissions only from an individual 
enclosed storage bin under Sec. 60.672(f) of this subpart, using Method 
9, the duration of the Method 9 observations shall be 1 hour (ten 6-
minute averages).
    (3) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions 
standard for any affected facility described under Sec. 60.672(b) of 
this subpart, the duration of the Method 9 observations may be reduced 
from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute 
averages) only if the following conditions apply:
    (i) There are no individual readings greater than 10 percent 
opacity; and
    (ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 10 percent for the 1-hour 
period.
    (4) When determining compliance with the fugitive emissions 
standard for any crusher at which a capture system is not used as 
described under Sec. 60.672(c) of this subpart, the duration of the 
Method 9 observations may be reduced from 3 hours (thirty 6-minute 
averages) to 1 hour (ten 6-minute averages) only if the following 
conditions apply:
    (i) There are no individual readings greater than 15 percent 
opacity; and
    (ii) There are no more than 3 readings of 15 percent for the 1-hour 
period.
* * * * *
    (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 a notice to 
the Administrator at least 7 days prior to any rescheduled performance 
test.
    (h) Initial Method 9 performance tests under Sec. 60.11 of this 
part and Sec. 60.675 of this subpart are not required for:
    (1) wet screening operations and subsequent screening operations, 
bucket elevators, and belt conveyors that process saturated material in 
the production line up to, but not including the next crusher, grinding 
mill or storage bin.
    (2) screening operations, bucket elevators, and belt conveyors in 
the production line downstream of wet mining operations, that process 
saturated materials up to the first crusher, grinding mill, or storage 
bin in the production line.
    6. Section 60.676 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph 
(b); revising paragraph (f); revising and redesignating paragraph (g) 
as paragraph (j); and adding new paragraphs (g), (h) and (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 60.676  Reporting and recordkeeping.

* * * * *
    (b) [Removed and 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 of 
this subpart, 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 screening operation, bucket 
elevator, or belt conveyor that processes saturated material and is 
subject to Sec. 60.672(h) and subsequently processes unsaturated 
materials, shall submit a report of this change within 30 days 
following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or 
belt conveyor is then subject to the 10 percent opacity limit in 
Sec. 60.672(b) and the emission test requirements of Sec. 60.11 and 
this subpart. Likewise a screening operation, bucket elevator, or belt 
conveyor that processes unsaturated material but subsequently processes 
saturated material shall submit a report of this change within 30 days 
following such change. This screening operation, bucket elevator, or 
belt conveyor is then subject to the no visible emission limit in 
Sec. 60.672(h).
    (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.
    (1) 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.

[[Page 31361]]

    (2) For portable aggregate processing plants, the notification of 
the actual date of initial startup shall include both the home office 
and the current address or location of the portable plant.
    (j) The requirements of this section remain in force until and 
unless the Agency, in delegating enforcement authority to a State under 
section 111(c) 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. 97-14856 Filed 6-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P