[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16007-16013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7028]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6955-8]
RIN 2060-AF29


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: We are taking direct final action to amend the national 
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese and Silicomanganese. The 
amendments are being made in response to a petition for reconsideration 
submitted to the EPA following promulgation of the rule and a petition 
for review filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit. The amendments establish new emission limitations for 
ferromanganese and silicomanganese production in open submerged arc 
furnaces. We are establishing four subcategories within this category 
of furnaces and specifying numerical emission limitations for 
particulate matter (PM) for each to account for differences in emission 
potential and control, furnace size, operating conditions, and alloy 
type. We are making these amendments as a direct final rule because we 
view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse 
comments.
    In accordance with our general practice, we are also proposing 
these amendments in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal 
Register. If no adverse comments are received in response to this 
direct final rule, no further action is contemplated with respect to 
the proposal. If we receive adverse comments, the direct final rule 
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. If adverse comment 
is received only on a discrete portion of the rule, we will consider 
withdrawing only that portion of the rule. We will not institute a 
second comment period on the proposal. Any parties interested in 
commenting on the amendments should do so at this time.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 21, 2001 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 23, 2001. If we receive 
such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.
    Judicial Review. Under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(b), judicial 
review of this nationally applicable final action is available only by 
filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit by May 21, 2001. Under section 307(b)(2), 
the regulations that are the subject of this action may not be 
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA in 
reliance on them.

ADDRESSES: Docket. All information we considered in developing these 
amendments is located in Docket No. A-92-59 at the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. The docket is located 
at the above address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor), and 
may be inspected from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 
Materials related to these amendments are available upon request from 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center by calling (202) 
260-7548 or 7549. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket 
materials.
    Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in duplicate if 
possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 
Attention Docket Number A-92-59, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, deliver comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-92-59, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests that a separate copy of each 
public comment be sent to the contact person listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Conrad Chin, Metals Group, 
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone (919) 
541-1512; facsimile (919) 541-5600, electronic mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. This action regulates entities that are 
industrial facilities producing ferromanganese or silicomanganese. 
Regulated categories and entities include those sources listed in the 
Primary Standard Industrial Classification Code 3313, 
Electrometallurgical Products, Except Steel.

[[Page 16008]]

    At this time, we are aware of only one facility, the Eramet 
Marietta Inc. (Eramet) plant in Marietta, Ohio, that is subject to the 
NESHAP. Questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity should be directed to the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section or the relevant 
permitting authority.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of this action will also be available on the WWW 
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a 
copy of the action will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various 
areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN 
is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. Overview of the May 20, 1999 Final Rule and Today's Amendments
II. Eramet's Petition for Reconsideration
III. Summary of Comments and Changes to the Final Rule
IV. Associated Benefits and Costs
V. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Congressional Review Act

I. Overview of the May 20, 1999 Final Rule and Today's Amendments

    The rule as promulgated in 1999 applies to new and existing 
ferroalloy production facilities that manufacture ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese and are major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) 
emissions or are co-located at major sources of HAP emissions.
    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to establish technology-based 
regulations for all categories and subcategories of major and area 
sources that are listed pursuant to section 112(c), and that emit one 
or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b). Major sources are those 
that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more 
of any single HAP or 25 tpy or more of any combination of HAP. 
Additional standards may be developed later under section 112(f) to 
address residual risk that may remain even after application of the 
technology-based controls.
    The following HAP emission sources at a ferroalloy production 
facility are affected by the final rule:
     Submerged arc furnaces.
     Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process.
     Crushing and screening operations.
     Fugitive dust sources.
    The final rule contains emission standards that limit PM emissions, 
as a surrogate for HAP, from existing and new or reconstructed emission 
sources. The limits for the submerged arc furnaces differ depending on 
the alloy produced (ferromanganese or silicomanganese) and furnace 
design (open or semi-sealed). The final rule also sets limits for the 
air pollution control devices associated with the MOR process and 
crushing and screening operations. The following table summarizes the 
emission standards, by process, as reflected in the final rule prior to 
today's amendments.

                           Emission Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New or reconstructed or                            Applicable PM
        existing source          Affected source     emission standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New or reconstructed..........  Submerged arc      0.23 kilograms per
                                 furnace (primary   hour per megawatt
                                 and tapping).      (kg/hr/MW) (0.51
                                                    pounds per hour per
                                                    megawatt (lb/hr/
                                                    MW)), or 35
                                                    milligrams per dry
                                                    standard cubic meter
                                                    (mg/dscm) (0.015
                                                    grains per dry
                                                    standard cubic foot
                                                    (gr/dscf))
Existing......................  Open submerged     16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/
                                 arc furnace        hr) when producing
                                 (primary and       silicomanganese, or
                                 tapping).          6.4 kg/hr (14.0 lb/
                                                    hr) when producing
                                                    ferromanganese
Existing......................  Semi-sealed        11.2 kg/hr (24.7 lb/
                                 submerged arc      hr) when producing
                                 furnace            ferromanganese
                                 (primary,
                                 tapping, and
                                 vent stacks).
New, reconstructed, or          MOR process......  69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/
 existing.                                          dscf)
New or reconstructed..........  Individual         50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/
                                 equipment          dscf)
                                 associated with
                                 the crushing and
                                 screening
                                 operation.
Existing......................  Individual         69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/
                                 equipment          dscf)
                                 associated with
                                 the crushing and
                                 screening
                                 operation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule also establishes an opacity limit on shop buildings 
that house one or more of the submerged arc furnaces to limit process 
fugitive emissions and imposes a duty on the owner or operator to 
prepare and operate according to a fugitive dust control plan that 
describes the measures put in place to control fugitive dust sources.
    Owners and operators are required to perform monthly inspections of 
the equipment that is important to the performance of the furnace 
capture systems, as well as operation and maintenance requirements 
applicable to all air pollution control devices employed to meet the 
standards.
    The final rule also contains detailed compliance provisions 
including compliance dates, as well as provisions for performance 
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
    The rule amendments will apply to the same HAP emission sources as 
the May 20, 1999 rule. Whereas the 1999 rule, in Secs. 63.1650(b) and 
63.1652(b), sets emission limits for existing open submerged arc 
furnaces according to alloy produced (ferromanganese or 
silicomanganese), the amended rule will take furnace size into 
consideration and couple emissions with furnace power input. 
Specifically, the amended rule establishes furnace and alloy specific 
particulate matter emissions standards for existing open submerged arc 
furnaces.
    Accordingly, applicability of the rule, Sec. 63.1650(b) as amended, 
for the submerged arc furnaces is expanded from three to five affected 
sources:
    (1) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input of 22 MW 
or less when producing ferromanganese.

[[Page 16009]]

    (2) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input greater 
than 22 MW when producing ferromanganese.
    (3) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input greater 
than 25 MW when producing silicomanganese.
    (4) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input of 25 MW 
or less when producing silicomanganese.
    (5) Semi-sealed submerged arc furnaces when producing 
ferromanganese.
    The emission standards for existing open submerged arc furnaces 
under Sec. 63.1653(b), are amended as follows to add new furnace and 
alloy specific emissions standards:
    (1) 9.8 kg/hr (21.7 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese in an open 
furnace operating at a furnace power input (``power input'') of 22 MW 
or less; or
    (2) 13.5 kg/hr (29.8 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a power input greater than 22 MW; or
    (3) 16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr) when producing silicomanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a power input greater than 25 MW; or
    (4) 12.3 kg/hr (27.2 lb/hr) when producing silicomanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a power input of 25 MW or less.
    Other components of the final rule, including the emission limit 
for semi-closed furnaces, MOR processes, crushing and screening 
operations, remain unchanged. Emission standards for new and 
reconstructed submerged arc furnaces as promulgated under 
Sec. 63.1652(a) are not affected by the amendments. There are also no 
changes to the opacity limit, fugitive dust control plan, maintenance 
and operating requirements, or monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
    Lastly, to provide sufficient time for compliance with the 
revisions, we are extending the compliance date under 
Sec. 63.1650(e)(1) for each owner and operator of an existing affected 
source from May 21, 2001 to November 21, 2001.

II. Eramet's Petition for Reconsideration

    After promulgation of the standards (64 FR 27450, May 20, 1999), 
Eramet filed a petition for reconsideration on July 16, 1999. In the 
petition Eramet argued that in the final rule we relied on information 
that was not available to the public during the public comment period. 
In addition, Eramet objected to certain specific changes made between 
proposal and promulgation that resulted in emission limitations that 
are more stringent than those proposed and which were not based on any 
comments in the public record.
    In response to the petition, we considered and analyzed information 
provided by the petitioner and determined that some of the arguments 
presented warranted changes to the rule. Specific arguments stated that 
we did not provide an opportunity for comment on the final numerical 
emission limit (14.0 lb/hr) for ferromanganese production, which was 
more stringent than the proposed numerical emission limit; and the 
final rule did not account for differences in emissions resulting from 
processing different alloy types in Eramet's two open submerged arc 
furnaces.
    After review of Eramet's petition and submitted data, we have 
amended the final rule in response to some issues raised. The amended 
rule will establish separate emission limits for PM as a surrogate for 
HAP, applicable to open submerged arc furnaces that account for 
differences in emissions potential and control due to dissimilarities 
in furnace size, operating conditions, and alloy type.

III. Summary of Comments and Changes to the Final Rule

    Eramet objected to the 14.0 lb/hr PM emission limit for furnaces 
producing ferromanganese. Specifically, Eramet objected to our 
dismissal of one of the 21 test runs available for Eramet's furnace #12 
when producing ferromanganese as an outlier. In addition, Eramet 
objected to our use of the highest compliance test result, which is a 
three-run average, rather than an approach based on all individual 
runs.
    The test run in question is one of three runs conducted by the 
company in November of 1992 as part of a routine annual performance 
test. The result, 21.7 lb/hr, appeared unusually high when compared 
with the results of six other performance tests and 20 other individual 
test runs obtained on furnace #12 when producing ferromanganese over 
the 7-year period. We applied a standard statistical test for outlier 
assessment, the Dixon Criteria, and concluded that the test run should 
be rejected as an outlier.
    We have, in response to Eramet's petition, closely reexamined our 
previous assessment and have determined that we made a computation 
error in our earlier outlier determination. As a result, we are 
reinstating this data point to the body of data to be used for standard 
setting.
    We have 21 individual test runs from seven performance tests on 
which to base the standard. Selecting the standard based on the highest 
individual run would produce a maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standard of 21.7 lb/hr, while basing the standards on the 
highest three-run average (highest single performance test) would 
result in a standard of 14.0 lb/hr. Both values were obtained from the 
November 1992 performance test.
    In selecting the appropriate level for the performance standard, 
consideration must be given to the full range of process and control 
device operating conditions, which can reasonably be foreseen, under 
which the standard is to be achieved. This is especially important 
where the control device applied operates as a constant efficiency 
device, such as venturi scrubber, in which outlet loading and mass rate 
will vary depending on inlet loading.
    Eramet has provided us a range of operational variables which 
significantly affect emissions from ferromanganese production in an 
open furnace. Some of the variables listed, such as moisture content in 
the raw material, weather, electrode length, and non-optimized tapping 
interval, are considered by us to be trivial, since a compliance test 
is a well-planned event, and should be performed under optimized 
operating conditions. One variable that Eramet listed, raw material 
changes, is worth consideration.
    Eramet has no captive source of ore, reducing agent, or other raw 
materials in ferromanganese production. Raw materials are purchased on 
the open market based on price, suitability, and availability. This can 
lead to wide variations in material sizing and chemistry. Furnace 
operating conditions are particularly susceptible to changes in ore 
sizing and lime content. Fine sized ore and high lime content in the 
charge can lead to unstable furnace conditions and increases in 
emissions.
    Based on the above considerations, we believe that the performance 
of the venturi scrubber under a reasonable worst case circumstance is 
best represented by the single highest individual run, and that 
selecting this highest value ensures that the standard will be met 
under all foreseeable acceptable operating conditions. As a result, we 
have selected 21.7 lb/hr PM as the standard for existing open submerged 
arc furnaces when producing ferromanganese in furnace #12.
    Our next amendment to the final rule establishes furnace and alloy 
specific PM emission limits for Eramet's two open submerged arc 
furnaces. Based on comments contained in the petition for 
reconsideration and subsequent

[[Page 16010]]

discussions with the petitioner, we are establishing new emission 
limits for the two open furnaces to account for the difference in 
emission potential and control due to differences in furnace size, 
operating conditions, and alloy type. As noted previously, we 
acknowledge that the two open submerged arc furnaces were not 
differentiated in establishing emission limits for the two alloys in 
the final rule. We did not anticipate that either furnace would be used 
to produce alloy different from what they were producing at 
promulgation. Consequently, we are amending the rule by taking into 
consideration the physical and operational differences between the two 
furnaces to establish furnace and alloy specific PM emission limits.
    As highlighted in the Eramet petition, furnaces #1 and #12 are 
different in several respects that can affect emissions materially, 
including size, electrode configuration, and electrical power input 
applied. Physically, furnace #1 is larger than furnace #12. Furnace #1 
measures 38 feet in diameter and has an effective furnace depth of 18 
feet. Furnace #12 is oval in shape and measures 37.4 feet by 35.7 feet; 
its furnace depth is 19 feet. Relative to electrode configuration, 
furnace #1 uses larger diameter electrodes (65 inches) and greater 
electrode spacing (12.5 feet) than furnace #12, which has 60 inch 
diameter electrodes and electrode spacing of 11.5 feet. Operationally, 
furnace #1 operates at higher power input than furnace #12 for the same 
alloy type. When producing silicomanganese, furnace #1 operates at a 
power input of 30 MW. In contrast, furnace #12 is projected to operate 
at a power input of 25 MW when producing silicomanganese. When 
producing ferromanganese, furnace #12 operates at a power input of 20 
to 22 MW, while furnace #1 is expected to operate at 25 MW.
    There are no historical emissions data on which to establish 
furnace specific emission limits for furnace #1 when producing 
ferromanganese or furnace #12 when producing silicomanganese. Although 
furnace #1 is permitted for ferromanganese production by the State of 
Ohio, ferromanganese has not been produced in the furnace since 1993, 
which predates any requirements by the State of Ohio for performance 
testing. To our knowledge, furnace #12 has never produced 
silicomanganese, nor is it presently permitted to do so. Although there 
are no actual emissions data from which to establish standards, we 
believe that suitable and defensible standards can be developed on the 
basis of engineering judgement and extrapolation.
    According to the petitioner, furnace emissions are directly 
proportional to the power input, with higher input generating greater 
emissions as a result of higher furnace temperatures and throughput. In 
addition, the differences in furnace depth should also be considered. A 
deeper furnace increases the amount of mix above the reaction zone and, 
thus, increases the trapping and containment of fume within the 
furnace, reducing emissions discharged from the furnace. As noted 
above, furnace #1 has a furnace depth of 18 feet, and furnace #12 has a 
depth of 19 feet. The petitioner estimates that this 1-foot difference 
in furnace depth results in about a 10 percent difference in potential 
emissions, with the shallower furnace (#1) being the higher emitter.
    In formulating appropriate limits for furnace #1 when producing 
ferromanganese and furnace #12 when producing silicomanganese, we 
included the two considerations advanced by the petitioner: that 
emissions are directly proportional to power input and that emissions 
differ by 10 percent due to furnace depth. In establishing the emission 
limit for furnace #1 when producing ferromanganese, we multiplied the 
ferromanganese emission limit from furnace #12 (21.7 lb/hr) by 25 MW, 
the projected power input for furnace #1 when producing ferromanganese; 
divided by 20 MW, the power input for furnace #12 when producing 
ferromanganese; and multiplied the product by 1.1 to account for the 
fact that furnace #1 is shallower and thus higher emitting. The 
resulting emission limit is 29.8 lb/hr.
    Similarly, in establishing the emission limit for furnace #12 when 
producing silicomanganese, we multiplied the silicomanganese emission 
limit from furnace #1 (35.9 lb/hr) by 25 MW, the projected power input 
for furnace #12 when producing silicomanganese; divided by 30 MW, the 
power input for furnace #1 when producing silicomanganese; and 
multiplied the product by 0.9 to account for the fact that furnace #12 
is deeper and thus lower emitting. The resulting emission limit is 27.2 
lb/hr.
    In setting the emission standards for open submerged arc furnaces 
with a furnace power input greater than 22 MW producing ferromanganese 
and with a power input of 25 MW or less producing silicomanganese, EPA 
relied on engineering analysis. This was necessary because there are 
currently no furnaces operating that meet the above description and, as 
a result, EPA has no representative emissions data on which to base the 
emission standards. However, we believe that the limits developed on 
the basis of engineering analysis are reasonable and achievable for 
these types of furnaces.
    If, at some time in the future, either of these emissions limits 
becomes applicable to an existing furnace and the furnace operator has 
reason to conclude that the limits cannot be achieved, we will review 
any supporting data the operator submits and evaluate whether the 
standards should be revised to account for new information.
    The compliance date for existing sources is also being amended. The 
May 1999 rule set a compliance date of May 21, 2001--2 years from 
promulgation. Section 112(i) of the CAA requires that we set a 
compliance date which is as expeditious as practicable, but no more 
than 3 years from promulgation. Given the timing of today's amendments, 
we believe that it is necessary and appropriate to provide an 
additional 6 months for compliance to be achieved. This amended 
compliance date is 2 years and 6 months from promulgation of the 
original final rule, and therefore the amendment is within EPA's 
discretion.
    Other components of the final rule, including the emission limit 
for semi-closed furnaces, MOR processes, crushing, and screening 
operations, remain unchanged. Emission standards for new and 
reconstructed submerged arc furnaces as promulgated under 
Sec. 63.1652(a) are not affected by the amendments. There are also no 
changes to the opacity limit, fugitive dust control plan, maintenance 
and operating requirements, or monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements.

IV. Associated Benefits and Costs

    The amendments are expected to apply to only one facility, the 
Eramet Marietta plant in Marietta, Ohio. The following discussion of 
environmental, energy, and economic impacts is limited to this 
facility. We don't anticipate any new facilities being built now or in 
the foreseeable future.
    We believe that the amendments will have the primary effect of 
codifying existing control equipment and practices. Therefore, no 
additional emission control equipment would be required to comply with 
the amended standards, and no significant emissions reductions or other 
environmental impacts are anticipated to result from these amendments.
    Costs and economic impacts are expected to be minimal. The only 
costs associated with the amendments are

[[Page 16011]]

those required to perform compliance assurance activities such as 
performance testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. However, 
these costs are minor compared to costs already incurred by the 
facility in meeting its permit obligations for criteria pollutants.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (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 this regulatory action is not a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because none of the listed criteria apply to this 
action. Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review 
under Executive Order 12866.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
    Today's amendments do not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or 
operate an affected source. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply 
to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    These amendments do not have federalism implications. They will not 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments, and the amended rule 
requirements will not supercede State regulations that are more 
stringent. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 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 by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory

[[Page 16012]]

proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that these amendments do not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost 
of the amendment for any year has been estimated to be less than $19 
million. Thus, today's action is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of 
the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that these amendments 
contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it contains no requirements that apply 
to such governments or impose obligations upon them. Therefore, today's 
action is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the amended rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business ranging from 
500 to 1,000 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    Based on the above definition of small entities, the Agency has 
determined that Eramet is not a small business. Therefore, because this 
amended rule will not impose any requirements on small entities, this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Today's amendments to the rule do not affect the information 
collection burden estimates made previously. Consequently, the ICR has 
not been revised for these amendments to the rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns the environmental 
health or safety risk that the EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
aspects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This amended final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically 
significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and 
it is based on technology performance and not on health or safety 
risks.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary 
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (such as material specifications, test methods, 
sampling and analytical procedures, and business practices) developed 
or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies. The 
NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations 
when an agency does not use available and applicable voluntary 
consensus standards. This action does not involve the promulgation of 
any new technical standards.

I. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provided that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing 
this direct final rule and other required information to the U.S. 
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General 
of the United States prior to publication in the Federal Register. This 
direct final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ferromanganese and 
silicomanganese production, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 15, 2001.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart XXX--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.1650 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (e)(1) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 63.1650  Applicability and compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (b) The following sources at a ferromanganese and silicomanganese 
production facility are subject to this subpart:
    (1) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input of 22 MW 
or less when producing ferromanganese.
    (2) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input greater 
than 22 MW when producing ferromanganese.
    (3) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input greater 
than 25 MW when producing silicomanganese.
    (4) Open submerged arc furnaces with a furnace power input of 25 MW 
or less when producing silicomanganese.
    (5) Semi-sealed submerged arc furnaces when producing 
ferromanganese.
    (6) Metal oxygen refining (MOR) process.
    (7) Crushing and screening operations.

[[Page 16013]]

    (8) Fugitive dust sources.
* * * * *
    (e) Compliance dates. (1) Each owner or operator of an existing 
affected source must comply with the requirements of this subpart no 
later than November 21, 2001.
* * * * *

    3. Section 63.1652 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.1652  Emission standards.

* * * * *
    (b) Existing open submerged arc furnaces. No owner or operator 
shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from any existing open 
submerged arc furnace exhaust gases (including primary and tapping) 
containing particulate matter in excess of one of the following:
    (1) 9.8 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (21.7 pounds per hour (lb/hr)) 
when producing ferromanganese in an open furnace operating at a furnace 
power input of 22 MW or less; or
    (2) 13.5 kg/hr (29.8 lb/hr) when producing ferromanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a furnace power input greater than 22 MW; or
    (3) 16.3 kg/hr (35.9 lb/hr) when producing silicomanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a furnace power input greater than 25 MW; or
    (4) 12.3 kg/hr (27.2 lb/hr) when producing silicomanganese in an 
open furnace operating at a furnace power input of 25 MW or less.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-7028 Filed 3-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P